"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.
Since choice of law is dependent on venue in Immigration Court proceedings, the controlling circuit law is not affected by a change in the administrative control court and will only change upon the granting of a motion to change venue. Matter of Garcia, 28 I&N Dec. 693 (BIA 2023), followed.
“In a decision dated October 24, 2023, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent’s application for deferral of removal under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The respondent, a native and citizen of Morocco, has appealed that decision. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has not responded to the appeal. Because we agree with the respondent that additional fact-finding and analysis are needed and the Immigration Judge misapplied choice of law precedent, we will remand these proceedings for the entry of a new decision. … The record reflects that the respondent has been detained at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center (“Moshannon”) in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, throughout these proceedings. The proceedings commenced with the filing of a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) on April 18, 2023, at the Cleveland, Ohio Immigration Court, which is within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. … After the respondent’s individual hearing on October 20, 2023, the Immigration Judge applied Third Circuit law and denied deferral of removal under CAT. … The respondent argues that the Immigration Judge erroneously applied Third Circuit law rather than Sixth Circuit law. We review this issue de novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2020). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the respondent that the Immigration Judge applied the incorrect circuit’s law. … On remand, the Immigration Judge should reevaluate the respondent’s claim under Sixth Circuit law and apply relevant Board precedent, with consideration to the respondent’s appellate arguments concerning the respondent’s gender identity and sexual orientation. See Matter of C-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 740, 745 (BIA 2023) (explaining that “when considering future harm, adjudicators should not expect a respondent to hide” the respondent’s sexual orientation).”
Great job, Jennifer! Once again, it’s worth asking ourselves how successful arguments of this kind could ever be made by an unrepresented respondent. If, as is painfully obvious to even a casual observer, the answer is “they couldn’t,” then where is the due process in an overloaded, corner-cutting court system where lack of representation is actually on the increase, despite truly heroic efforts by the private and pro bono bars?
I also find the last sentence of the above summary very helpful. While it certainly states the correct rule regarding sexual orientation cases, my sense is that this part of the Matter of C-G-T- precedent is often ignored at the Immigration Court level and not always corrected by the BIA on appeal. So, it’s certainly worth re-emphasizing!
The BIA’s opinion was written by Appellate Immigration Judge Gorman for a panel that also included Appellate Immigration Judge Greer and Temporary Appellate IJ Crossett.
Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)
In 2003, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees published Guidelines for applying the bars to asylum known internationally as the “exclusion clauses” (because they exclude an applicant from being recognized as a refugee under international law). Addressing the proper procedure for applying these bars, the UNHCR Guidelines state:
Given the grave consequences of exclusion, it is essential that rigorous procedural safeguards are built into the exclusion determination procedure. Exclusion decisions should in principle be dealt with in the context of the regular refugee status determination procedure and not in either admissibility or accelerated procedures, so that a full factual and legal assessment of the case can be made.1
This week, the Biden Administration published a proposed rule seeking to do precisely the opposite of what UNHCR advises.2 The rule would empower USCIS asylum officers to apply certain bars to asylum eligibility up front, at the border, as part of a preliminary admissibility determination. The goal is to effect the immediate deportation of certain asylum seekers, foreclosing their ability to have their eligibility for asylum decided by an Immigration Judge pursuant to a full-fledged hearing.
Advocates have already pointed out the dangers of the proposed approach, which will require quick decisions on highly complex issues at a point at which applicants very rarely have access to lawyers or evidence; their responses should be read.3 However, I would like to focus here on the rule’s conflict with international law, and why this is problematic.
Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy 4 has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.5
This general requirement carries a particular urgency in its application to refugee law. The purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention (which applied to those made refugees by World War II), and the 1967 Protocol (which extended the 1951 Convention’s definitions and protections to all) was to create a single, universal refugee standard to replace the patchwork of protections that reflected individual states’ own political preferences and biases.
This is not a small matter. International refugee law scholars James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster have warned that “[i]nconsistency and divergence in interpretation of the Convention definition would clearly undermine the principled goal of ensuring a single, universal standard for access to refugee protection.”6 They further quote a decision of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in support of this contention: “[i]nconsistency is not merely inelegant; it brings the process of deciding into disrepute, suggesting an arbitrariness which is incompatible with commonly accepted notions of justice.”7
Congress apparently agreed with this approach when enacting the 1980 Refugee Act. In its landmark 1987 decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme Court pointed this out:
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 1968.8
And in adhering to Congress’s clear intent, the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca looked for guidance in interpreting the 1980 Refugee Act to UNHCR, citing its Handbook first issued in 1979 as an important tool for interpreting the Convention’s provisions. In a footnote, the Court found that while it was not binding, “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform. It has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.”9
As leading scholar Deborah E. Anker has noted, “One of the most important developments in U.S. asylum law is the weight that U.S. authorities – including the USCIS Asylum Office, the Board, and the federal courts – give to the UNHCR’s interpretation of the refugee definition contained in its 1979 Handbook….” Anker noted that UNHCR has issued other interpretive documents since 1979 that “complement and expand on the Handbook.”10 I would argue that those other documents (which include the 2003 guidelines addressing the exclusion clauses that is quoted above) are deserving of the same interpretive weight.
So given (1) the Supreme Court’s Charming Betsy doctrine mandating conformity with international law whenever possible; (2) the stated intent of Congress to bring U.S. asylum law into conformity with international refugee law (as recognized in Cardoza-Fonseca); and (3) the purpose of the 1951 Convention to “ensure a single, universal standard” for refugee status, according great weight to UNHCR guidance in interpreting the Convention provides the best means of adhering to all of the above requirements.
However, another leading scholar, Karen Musalo, provided a recent reminder of how far U.S. law has strayed from international law standards for determining nexus (i.e. when persecution is “on account of” a statutorily protected ground), and in determining the validity of particular social groups. Musalo posits that realignment with international standards would resolve the erroneous interpretations that have arisen under present case law, and would remove unwarranted barriers to protection that presently exist.11 But with its new proposed regulations, the government instead seeks to veer even further off course in its procedures for determining bars to asylum eligibility.
In December 2020, I presented in a blog post a “wish list” for the incoming Biden Administration. One of the items on my list was to create a “Charming Betsy” regulation requiring adherence to international law refugee standards. It included the hope “that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.”12
I am not so naive to expect that a regulation like this will be proposed anytime soon. But I do believe that the direct contradiction of the proposed regs with international law guidance should be included in comments and talking points by those both inside and outside of government. Through these rules, the Biden Administration seeks to engage in the type of politically-motivated action that the Refugee Convention and 1980 Refugee Act sought to eliminate. For the above reasons, such action would violate the intent of Congress, our treaty obligations, and over two centuries of U.S. case law.
Moving forward, whether an asylum-related law, rule, policy, or case holding conforms with international law should instinctively be the first question asked by all of us. When refugee protection is viewed in such neutral, legal terms, the urge to politicize decisions will be lessened.
As those scholars referenced above have been saying far longer and more articulately than myself, it is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.
Copyright 2024 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
See Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982) (noting that construing federal statutes to avoid violating international law has “been a maxim of statutory construction since the decision” in Charming Betsy).
James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (Second Ed.), (Cambridge, 2014) at 4.
Hathaway and Foster, supra at n.18 (quoting Brennan, J., in Re Drake and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Aus. AAT, Nov. 21, 1979) at 639.
480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987).
Id. at 439.
Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2023 Ed.) (Thomson Reuters) at 20-21.
Karen Musalo, “Aligning United States With International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims,” International Journal of Refugee Law (2024).
The schooner Charming Betsy sailed into Supreme Court history. Hon. Jeffrey Chase and other legal experts aren’t “charmed” by AG Merrick Garland’s approach to binding international standards for asylum! PHOTO: The Constitutional Law Reporter
Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey” for a great and timely analysis!
For the second successive Administration, we have an Attorney General who does not take seriously his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States when it comes to those seeking asylum.
Garland has too often signed off on regulations and policies that are clearly at odds with domestic and international law as well as our Constitution. The current abominable proposed regulations, referenced by Jeffrey and opposed by all experts on asylum law and human rights, are just the latest example. Those politicos behind these toxic policies won’t confront in person or acknowledge the well-documented unnecessary human trauma and degradation caused by scofflaw actions and policies that intentionally fail to make fair, humane, safe, and timely asylum processing available to all who come to legal ports of entry as required by law (not to mention human decency)!
“One day after he pleaded guilty to violating a Tennessee domestic-violence law, the federal government initiated removal proceedings against Jose Yanel Sanchez-Perez. Ultimately, an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals determined that Sanchez-Perez could not seek cancellation of removal due to this conviction. The Board of Immigration Appeals improperly determined that Sanchez-Perez pleaded guilty to a crime of violence, however. Accordingly, we GRANT Sanchez-Perez’s petition for review, VACATE the Board’s order of removal, and REMAND to the Board for proceedings consistent with our opinion. … Because the Tennessee statute at issue, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-101(a)(2), criminalizes conduct beyond the federal definition of a crime of violence, the BIA erred in finding that Sanchez-Perez is statutorily barred from seeking cancellation of removal. … The government’s and BIA’s errors in this case involve basic misreading of both our and the Supreme Court’s precedents concerning the distinctions between different federal statutory schemes and the meaningful differences among state criminal statutes. At bottom, because on its face the Tennessee statute at issue here criminalizes conduct that does not require the use or threatened use of violent physical force, the BIA erred when it determined that Sanchez-Perez was statutorily barred from applying for cancellation of removal by virtue of his 2009 conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault under Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-111.”
This is what happens when an appellate body beholden to DHS Enforcement looks for “any reason to deny” while “what me worry” AG Merrick Garland looks the other way!
⚖️ BIA: OUTSDE, INSIDE: Garland Reportedly Will Tap “Practical Scholar” Professor Homero López, Jr., & Temp. Appellate Immigration Judge Joan B. Geller To Prior Vacancies, With One Judgeship Still “In Competition!”
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Special to Courtside
March 19, 2024
Although there has been no official announcement from DOJ/EOIR, I have learned that Professor (and legal services provider) Homero López and Temporary Appellate Judge (and long-time BIA attorney) Joan Geller will be appointed to two of the three existing vacancies at the BIA. The BIA is the highest administrative tribunal in immigration law and exercises nationwide jurisdiction over the Immigration Courts with authority to issue binding precedents.
Professor López‘s appointment was announced by Loyola University Law (New Orleans) where he has been an Adjunct Professor of Law:
Adjunct Professor Promoted to Board of Immigration Appeals
Adjunct Law Professor Homero Lopez has been appointed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the top administrative appellate agency to review immigration court decisions in the United States! Judge Lopez will start considering appeals on April 1st!
BIA Judge-designate Homero López, Jr. PHOTO: ILSA website
In addition to his adjunct professorship at Loyola, Judge-designate López most recently has been the Co-Founder & Legal Director of Immigration Services and Legal Advocacy (“ISLA”) in New Orleans, “a legal services organization that defends the rights of our immigrant communities and advocates for just and humane immigration policy.”
Here’s his bio from the ISLA website:
Homero is ISLA’s Legal Director. As the son of a migrant worker, Homero grew up moving around the country and living among immigrant communities his entire life. Before co-founding ISLA, Homero was the managing attorney at Catholic Charities-Archdiocese of New Orleans where he oversaw a legal team of 30 attorneys, accredited representatives, and legal assistants focusing on representing Unaccompanied Children and immigrant victims of crime. Before that, Homero was a staff, and later, supervising attorney at Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Baton Rouge where he conducted the Legal Orientation Program for detained immigrants at the LaSalle Detention Facility and primarily focused on detained cases. Homero is a graduate of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas and Tulane University Law School in New Orleans, Louisiana.
López recently was featured by Dan Kowalski in LexisNexis for his successful litigation of a major due process/credibility victory in the Fifth Circuit, Nkenglefac v. Garland, 34 F.4th 422, 430 (2022), and for prevailing in the fee award litigation in the same case. See:
Judge-designate Geller has spent the bulk of her legal career as on the BIA staff and has also served as a Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge/Board Member. Here’s her “official bio” from the EOIR website:
Joan B. Geller was appointed as a temporary board member in January 2018. Ms. Geller, who has prior experience as a temporary board member, has over 14 years of experience as an attorney advisor at the Board. Prior to joining the Board, Ms. Geller served for seven years with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, first as a staff attorney and later as a deputy staff counsel. Ms. Geller received her B.A. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and her J.D.from Georgetown University Law Center. She is a member of the District of Columbia and Maryland Bars.
Significantly, from my standpoint, she graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Georgetown Law, two institutions with which I have long-time associations.While Geller’s BIA service began after my tenure there, sources tell me she was “held in high regard by the staff attorneys.” That’s important, given that the bulk of the opinion-drafting work at the BIA is done by the staff and the endemic quality control issues now plaguing this appellate body.
Hopefully, López and Geller will bring some much-needed due process focus, quality control, and practical progressive scholarship, leadership, and energy to a floundering, yet critically important, tribunal badly in need of the foregoing.
Indeed, López’s stellar work in Nkenglefac went right to the heart of the chronic due process and quality control problems of the BIA, particularly in life or death asylum cases, under Sessions, Barr, and now Garland: failure to follow precedent favorable to the respondent, “phantom finding of waiver,” lack of critical analysis, misrepresentation of the record, misuse of non-record materials, improper allocation of the burdens, and ignoring or minimizing voluminous testimony!In other words, a classic example of prejudgement and “any reason to deny” (even if not in the record) decision-making!
So totally miserable was EOIR’s and OIL’s performance in Nkenglefac that in a rare move the Fifth Circuit in subsequent litigation found them to be “not substantially justified at each stage of this litigation” and awarded costs and attorneys fees to the respondent! Having seen first-hand just how absurdly skewed and unfair the EOIR system has become in “life on the line” cases, López should be well-positioned to “just say no” to this type of appellate nonsense and inject a long-missing dose of reality, humanity, and real scholarship into this “ivory (actually glass) tower tribunal!”
Those of us who care about justice in America have ripped Garland’s BIA for sloppiness, anti-asylum culture, anti-immigrant attitudes, and failure to establish clear, practical, positive precedents facilitating the timely granting of asylum to the many qualified refugees now stuck in the largely USG-created morass at our Southern Border.See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/03/18/⚖️-winograd-whomps-🥊-garlands-eoir-again-this-time-on-particularly-serious-crime-psc-annor-v-garland-fo/. For example, the failure to issue a precedent requiring presumptive grants of asylum to Afghan women, instead making them laboriously work their way through the system with potentially incorrect results, is an egregious, but not certainly not the only, example of the BIA’s abject failure to “get the job done for American justice.”
I also trust that López and Geller will be “throwbacks” to a time when senior leaders EOIR actually believed in the noble (now abandoned) “vision” of EOIR that I once had a role in crafting:“Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
Rather than making that vision a reality, disgracefully, under the last four Administrations, the EOIR motto appears to have devolved into “any reason to deny, good enough for government work, numbers over quality, institutional survival over individual justice, go along to get along, and don’t rock the boat!”
Finally, the appointment of Judge-designate López illustrates my constantly-made point that NDPA warriors can and must compete for EOIR judgeships, particularly at the BIA level, when they are advertised! This system needs practical, positive, due-process-focused, protection-oriented change, and it needs it now!Things are only going to improve if the pressure comes from both better-qualified judges on the “inside” and unrelenting litigation and media coverage from the “outside!”
And, of course, good luck to both these new Appellate Immigration Judges! May you never, ever forget that due process is the one and only mission of EOIR!
NDPA “Four Star General” ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Charles Kuck reports:
My partner Danielle Claffey won yet ANOTHER Russian Asylum case the belly of the beast Atlanta Immigration Court.THIS is why lawyers are essential in asylum cases!
Danielle says:
Earlier this week, I had the great fortune of securing asylee status for a young Muslim girl from Russia, before an Atlanta immigration judge. Though she is young and was so quiet for the last year I was handling her case, in court, she was strong, confident, and provided vivid detail of what she went through for the entire 19 years of her life in Russia before fleeing for America. After the judge formally granted her asylee status, and the government waived appeal, the judge told her she was sorry for everything she went through in her home country. When the judge granted her case, and the interpreter translated the judge’s words, it was the first time I saw my client smile, followed by a big deep breath. She has carried a lot in her 21 years, but can now rest easy and pursue all of her dreams here in the U.S.
*************************
Danielle M. Claffey, Esquire Partner Kuck Baxter LLC Atlanta, GA PHOTO: Kuck Baxter
Many congrats, Danielle, and thanks so much for sharing! With great representation, anything is possible, even in Atlanta!
THIS is actually the way Immigration Court could and should work on a regular basis from all involved! Teamwork for justice! Note that:
No appeal;
No petition for review;
No remand;
No “aimless docket reshuffling;”
No need to keep renewing work authorization;
Respondent feels welcomed and understood by U.S. justice system;
Respondent leaves courtroom on the way to a green card, eventual U.S. citizenship, and can fulfill full potential in society;
Models and rewards best practices and professional cooperation (by EOIR, ICE, and the private bar) in achieving “justice with efficiency;”
As Charles says, representation is essential; you bet; so, why hasn’t Garland worked WITH the pro bono bar, NGOs, and clinical educators to facilitate representation in every asylum case? (HINT: “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and its derivative “Expedited Dockets” — both “Garland specialties” — are major, DOJ-created, impediments to effective representation and are particularly discouraging and problematic for pro bono representatives!
“The BIA erred in affirming the IJ. The entirety of the BIA’s analysis about the motion to reopen was that Davis “has not established that evidence of his mental health issues and of his past and feared harm if returned to Liberia are new, previously unavailable, or would likely change the result in his case.” This one sentence alludes to the elements of a motion to reopen, but does not explain how they apply to Davis’s case. Neither the IJ nor the BIA met the requirements of reasoned decision-making. … Without an adequate explanation, this Court cannot conduct a meaningful review of the BIA’s September 30, 2022 order. … This Court grants Davis’s petition for review in case no. 22-3262, denies the petition for review in case no. 23-1229, and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off to Colleen Mary Cowgill, Joseph N. Glynn, Elaine Janet Goldenberg, Keren Hart Zwick, Zachary Scott Buckheit, Golnaz Fakhimi, David R. Fine, Kira Michele Geary, Haarika R. Reddy, Cynthia Louise Rice and Kate Thorstad!]
****************
Congrats to the NDPA team from Immigration and Disability Law Scholars.
But, this is an example of how Merrick Garland’s DOJ is failing the basics of American justice! Note that:
Two levels of EOIR flunk “Judging 101” — badly;
Inappropriate “defense of the indefensible” (and easily correctable) by Garland’s DOJ (OIL) asserting semi-frivolous jurisdictional argument;
Wastes Court of Appeals time on something Garland could and should have corrected and prevented from reoccurring;
Failure to follow Circuit precedent by both EOIR and OIL;
Failure to apply established standards;
Likely use of mindless “any reason to deny boilerplate” at EOIR;
Generates needless motion to reconsider;
After four years, two IJ hearings, two administrative appeals, a motion to reopen, a motion to reconsider, a trip to the Court of Appeals, case remains unresolved;
Competent EOIR Judges could have reopened the case and ruled on the merits in less time and using fewer resources than trying to mindlessly avoid providing the respondent with a reasoned decision;
In a system with three million pending cases these types of easily avoidable, sophomoric mistakes from supposedly “expert” judges are repeated over and over again— not always caught and corrected — leading to denials of due process and fundamental fairness and promoting backlog-building “aimless docket reshuffling!”
What if the the wonderful team at “Immigraton and Disability Law Scholars” could devote 100% of their time to representing vulnerable individuals at merits hearings in Immigration Court rather than having to correct avoidable mistakes by EOIR and OIL?
After three years in charge of EOIR, why hasn’t Merrick Garland, a former Court of Appeals Judge nominated to the Supremes:
Cleaned house at EOIR;
Brought in new, expert, dynamic, due-process-focused leadership;
Institutionalized best practices (see example 1 above);
Attacked system-wide anti-immigrant culture, lack of quality control, and unprofessional decision-making that continues to plague this critical “retail level” of American justice (see example 2 above);
Fixed OIL so that it will stop undermining justice in America by raising specious arguments and defending indefensible EOIR mistakes in the Article III Courts?
Merrick Garland’s “Alfred E. Neumann Approach” at EOIR: Indolent, inappropriate, ineffective! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
It’s not rocket science; it doesn’t require legislation (although Garland certainly should have been publicly pushing for Article I); it just takes a laser-focused commitment to due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and efficient delivery of justice from what continues to be America’s worst “court system!”
Why that leadership and action isn’t coming from Garland is a question that everyone who cares about the future of American🇺🇸⚖️ justice should be asking every day! Fix the fixable! Model the best! That’s “Good Governing 101!”
Turning this group loose on asylum seekers is an act of gross legal, judicial, and political malpractice by the Biden Administration and Merrick Garland! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Here, the IJ and BIA found, and the government does not dispute, that Espinoza-Ochoa credibly testified that he experienced harm and threats of harm in Guatemala that “constitute[d] persecution.” But the agency concluded that Espinoza-Ochoa was still ineligible for asylum for two reasons. First, it held that Espinoza-Ochoa had failed to identify a valid PSG because the social group he delineated, “land-owning farmer, who was persecuted for simply holding [the] position of farmer and owning a farm, by both the police and gangs in concert,” was impermissibly circular. Second, the IJ and BIA each held that, regardless of whether his asserted PSG was valid, the harm Espinoza-Ochoa experienced was “generalized criminal activity” and therefore was not on account of his social group. We conclude that the BIA committed legal error in both its PSG and nexus analyses. We first explain why Espinoza-Ochoa’s PSG was not circular and then evaluate whether his PSG was “at least one central reason” for the harm he suffered. Ultimately, we remand to the agency to reconsider both issues consistent with this opinion. … For all these reasons, we agree with Espinoza-Ochoa that legal error infected both the PSG and nexus analyses below. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition, VACATE the decision below, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats way off to Randy Olen!]
***********************
You’ve been reading about this damaging, deadly legal travesty going on during Garland’s watch:
How outrageous, illegal, and “anti-historical” are the Garland BIA’s antics? The classic example of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary persecutions involve targeting property owners, particularly landowners. Indeed, in an earlier time, the BIA acknowledged that “landowners” were a PSG. See, e.g., Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985).
But, now in intellectually dishonest decisions, the BIA pretzels itself, ignores precedent, and tortures history in scurrilous attempts to deny obvious protection. These bad decisions, anti-asylum bias, and deficient scholarship infect the entire system.
It makes cases like this — which couldand should have easily been granted in a competent system shortly after the respondent’s arrival in 2016 — hang around for seven years, waste resources, and still be on the docket.
This is a highly — perhaps intentionally — unrecognized reason why the U.S. asylum asylum system is failing today. It’s also a continuing indictment of the deficient performance of Merrick Garland as Attorney General.
Obviously, these deadly, festering problems infecting the entire U.S. justice system are NOT going to be solved by taking more extreme enforcement actions against those whose quest for fair and correct asylum determinations are now being systematically stymied and mishandled by the incompetent actions of the USG, starting with the DOJ!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action — After three years of ignoring experts on how to fix asylum and the border, the Biden Administration appears ready to join GOP nativists in throwing vulnerable legal asylum seekers and their supporters “under the bus.” Cartels and criminal smugglers undoubtedly are looking forward to “filling the gap” left by the demise of the legal asylum system! They will be “the only game in town’” for those seeking life-saving refuge! There is no record of increased cruelty and suspension of the rule of law “solving” migration flows, although an increase in exploitation and death of migrants seems inevitable. Perhaps, that’s just “collateral damage” to U.S. politicos. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
[T]he Board found that Sebastian-Sebastian failed to demonstrate a nexus between her particular social groups and the harm she faced. In its denial of CAT protection, the Board found that Sebastian-Sebastian failed to demonstrate that she is more likely than not to be tortured if removed to Guatemala. On appeal, Sebastian-Sebastian argues that the Board’s conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Because the Board’s failure to make necessary findings as to the asylum and withholding of removal claims is erroneous, but its conclusion as to Sebastian-Sebastian’s CAT claim is supported by substantial evidence, we GRANT Sebastian-Sebastian’s petition for review in part, DENY in part, VACATE the Board’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal, and REMAND to the Board for reconsideration consistent with our opinion.”
[Hats off to Jaime B. Naini and Ashley Robinson! N.B., the motion for stay of removal was denied. I have a call in to the attorneys to find out if she was removed…]
Rather than looking for ways to restrict or eliminate asylum, Congress and the Administration should be concerned about quality-control and expertise reforms in asylum adjudication, including a long-overdue independent Article I Immigration Court! Once again, the BIA violates Circuit precedent to deny asylum.
The answer to systemically unfair, (intentionally) unduly restrictive interpretations, and often illegal treatment of asylum seekers by the USG should not be to further punish asylum seekers! It should be fixing the asylum adjudication system to comply with due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and professionalism!
Casey Carter Swegman Director of Public Policy at the Tahirih Justice Center PHOTO: Tahirih Justice Center
Here’s a statement from the Tahirih Justice Center about the disgraceful “negotiations” now taking place in Congress:
The Tahirih Justice Center is outraged by the news that the administration appears willing to play politics with human lives. These attacks on immigrants and people seeking asylum represent not simply a broken promise, but a betrayal and we urge the President and Congress to reverse course.
“I am gravely concerned that, if passed, these policies will further trap and endanger immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. Selling out asylum seekers and immigrant communities under the guise of ‘border security’ in order to pass a supplemental funding package is absolutely unacceptable,” said Casey Carter Swegman, Director of Public Policy at the Tahirih Justice Center. “And we know the impact of these cruel, deterrence-based policies will land disproportionately on already marginalized immigrants of color. I urge the White House and Congress not to sell out immigrants and asylum seekers for a funding deal.”
Every day, people fleeing persecution – including survivors of gender-based violence – arrive at our border having escaped unspeakable violence. Raising the fear standard, enacting a travel ban, putting a cap on asylum seekers, and expanding expedited removal nationwide (to name just a few proposals that have been floated in recent days) will do nothing to solve the challenges at the southern border and serve only to create more confusion, narrow pathways to humanitarian relief, increase the risk of revictimization and suffering, and punish immigrants seeking safety and a life of dignity.
These kinds of proposals double down on the climate of fear that many immigrants in this country already face on a day-to-day basis and will disproportionately impact Black, Brown and Indigenous immigrant communities.Immigrants should not be met with hostile and unmanageable policies that violate their humanity as well as their legal rights. We can and must do better.
These are “negotiations” in which those whose legal rights and humanity are being “compromised” (that is, tossed away) have no voice at the table as politicos ponder what will best suit their own interests.
“Petitioner Srecko Pesikan argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) erred in concluding that his 2018 Pennsylvania conviction for driving under the influence (“DUI”) of marijuana constituted an offense involving a “controlled substance,” as defined in the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), thereby rendering him removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (“INA”). We agree and will grant his petition for review. … In sum, because the identity of the specific controlled substance is not an element of the Pennsylvania DUI statute, the state statute of conviction is indivisible and cannot serve as the basis for Pesikan’s removal under the INA. … For the foregoing reasons, we will grant Pesikan’s Petition for Review in case number 21-1262 and will reverse the order for removal.”
These are important cases with high stakes! They deserve expert analysis from expert judges.
Eliminating unnecessary Circuit reversals and remands like this would also help address the backlog-building, due-process-denying phenomenon of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR. Avoidable mistakes at the “retail level” are systemically costly to our justice system in more ways than one!
And, remember, that for every EOIR mistake that gets “caught” by the Article IIIs, dozens of these injustices probably go uncorrected! Circuit review is a luxury that isn’t available to most individuals who lose at the BIA level. Even here, Mr. Pesikan would have had no chance at the Circuit except for court-appointed pro bono counsel Stephen A. Fogdall and his team at Dillworth & Paxon, LLP, another luxury unavailable to litigants at the EOIR level.
Moreover, even when Circuit review does take place, the inappropriately deferential standards established by Congress allow (or even require) some Circuit panels to merely sweep glaring injustices under the rug without grappling with the overall constitutional implications of this shoddy, due–process-denying system. Why on earth would “deference” be given or review restricted over the “gang that can’t shoot straight” at EOIR?”
Would you give “deference” to these guys? Theatrical poster from Wikipedia
“The question before us is whether the BIA’s determinations are supported by substantial evidence. As will be explained below, the BIA’s rationale does not allow us to make that determination. So we grant Lin’s petition and remand for further proceedings. … It is difficult to imagine that a reasonable person in Lin’s position, under the circumstances demonstrated in the record, would feel safe returning home. The determination that Lin failed to show a reasonable likelihood of individualized persecution in China is contravened by the record and compels us to conclude otherwise. … [H]ere, where we are left with no indication that the BIA undertook the appropriate inquiry and significant indications that it likely did not, remand for full consideration is proper.”
PWS: “Another “Big Whiff” by the BIA! Sounds like assembly line denials to me!”
HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE: “Whether a reasonable person returning home would feel safe – the correct standard cited by the circuit, is rarely if ever applied by the current BIA. I would really love to see the IJ training material on this standard.”
This is life or death folks! Why isn’t getting it right at the “retail level” an urgent mission for the Government?
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!
“Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge found Petitioner not credible and denied her application, relying in part on inconsistencies between Petitioner’s statements during a border interview and later testimony regarding her fear of persecution. However, the immigration judge failed to consider various factors that may have affected the reliability of the border interview record. Petitioner claims that she was frightened during the interview because a border patrol officer hit her and yelled at her upon her arrival to the United States. Petitioner may also have been reluctant to reveal information about persecution because authorities in her home country were allegedly unwilling to help her due to her indigenous status. Moreover, the questions asked during Petitioner’s border interview generally were not designed to elicit the details of an asylum claim. In Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004), we cautioned immigration judges to consider these factors and others before relying on a border interview to find an asylum applicant not credible. Consistent with Ramsameachire and subsequent precedent, we hold that immigration judges are required to take such precautions, provided the record indicates that the Ramsameachire factors may be implicated. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for review in part, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Jose Luis Flores-Vasquez (“Flores-Vasquez”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal. He argues that the BIA erred in finding that his prior menacing conviction under Oregon Revised Statute § 163.190 constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”), rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal. We agree and grant this portion of the petition. … Here, … Matter of J-G-P- does not purport to reassess longstanding BIA and Ninth Circuit precedent concerning simple assault offenses, and because it misapplied that precedent, its conclusion is unreasonable. See id. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.”
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” Failure doesn’t seem to bother Garland. Maybe it should! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration community on the latest screwups from the Article IIIs:
“Mario Fonseca-Fonseca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen. Fonseca-Fonseca sought to reopen his immigration proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal. The BIA found that he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal because he did not submit new evidence that would likely change the result in his case. The parties disagree on a threshold issue—whether the BIA applied the correct burden of proof. … Today, we clarify that prima facie eligibility for relief requires only a threshold showing of eligibility—a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on the merits if the motion to reopen were granted. As the BIA previously explained, a noncitizen “demonstrates prima facie eligibility for relief where the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied.” In re S-V-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1306, 1308 (B.I.A. 2000) (en banc). Because the BIA applied the wrong standard in denying Fonseca-Fonseca’s motion to reopen, we remand to the agency to adjudicate his motions under the proper standard.”
[Hats off to Andrew J. S. Newcomb and Elias Mendoza!]
“This appeal requires us to decide how to apply the categorical approach to a conspiracy crime—a question of first impression in our Circuit. The United States seeks to revoke Lisette Lopez’s naturalization on the ground that she committed a crime of moral turpitude within five years of applying for citizenship and willfully concealed or misrepresented during the application process the fact that she had committed a crime. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the government on the ground that Lopez had committed a crime of moral turpitude during the statutory period. Because the crime to which Lopez pleaded guilty—conspiring to launder money—did not categorically involve moral turpitude, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
[Hats way off to the indefatigable Matthew Hoppock! An audio recording of the oral argument is here.]
******************************
3) Sue sponte reopening (5th Cir)
“Mancia would like to have her removal proceedings reopened so that her request for suspension of deportation can be adjudicated according to the still-extant substantive NACARA standards. … She contends that nothing in NACARA limits the Board’s general discretionary power to reopen sua sponte a case in which it has rendered a decision. Indeed, that inherent discretion is codified. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). So, she reasons, even though the special and more petitioner-friendly reopening avenue of section 203(c) closed to her in 1998, there is no reason why she cannot ask the Board to grant reopening under its discretionary authority, subject to all the limits that otherwise apply to that authority. … We agree with Mancia. The Board’s reliance on 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(h) — requiring filing of section 203(c) reopening requests with the Immigration Court — is misplaced because that requirement only applies to “any motion to reopen filed pursuant to the special rules of section 309(g) of IIRIRA, as amended by section 203(c) of NACARA.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(h)(1). Mancia’s motion to reopen is no such motion. And nothing in NACARA requires those seeking relief under its provisions to do so by filing a section 203(c) motion. The government points to no statute, rule, or precedent to the contrary. And we see no reason why NACARA should be read as implicitly divesting the Board of its discretion to sua sponte reopen a proceeding. … For the foregoing reasons, we grant Mancia’s petition by vacating the Board’s rejection of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings pursuant to the Board’s sua sponte authority and remanding for further consideration of that motion consistent with this opinion.”
Unnecessary mistakes such as this, including ones like USA v. Lopez, above, which carry over into naturalization and other areas, could largely be avoided if Garland heeded expert advice and appointed a BIA of all expert judges. That would be those with universally respected comprehensive knowledge of immigration and human rights, an unswerving commitment to due process, and a demonstrated focus on fair results — NOT the current “any reason to deny, let’s just go with the DHS flow” attitude that infects all too much of the BIA’s decision-making these days.
There is also some irresponsible performance going on at OIL where they are defending flawed results that expert advocates would or should know are unjust and in many cases just flat out wrong or misguided!
The above things are supposed to be “easy fixes” for Dem Administrations. Instead, the EOIR/DOJ continues to a large extent as it did under Trump — with serious adverse human, legal, and future consequences for American democracy.
If you can’t or won’t fix that which you control, what good are you? That’s the question that Dems should be asking about Garland’s indifferent performance on human rights, racial justice, and immigration — all inextricably related whether he and his lieutenants want to admit it or not!
“A federal judge has determined the government was unjustified in its fight to keep a woman locked up in an Aurora immigrant detention center while her deportation case proceeded. U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney ordered the federal government last September to hold a hearing to determine whether Brenda Viruel Arias should be released from custody. Sweeney found the circumstances of Viruel Arias’ 14-month confinement required a bond hearing to avoid infringing on her constitutional right to due process. Shortly afterward, an immigration judge permitted Viruel Arias’ release after the government failed to prove she should remain behind bars. Viruel Arias’ lawyers then requested $22,601 in attorney fees from the government. Under federal law, victorious parties in civil cases against the government may receive attorney fees if, among other things, the government’s position was not “substantially justified.” On July 12, Sweeny agreed the government was not substantially justified in resisting a release hearing for Viruel Arias. In recent years, she observed, federal judges in Colorado have been sympathetic to non-citizens’ claims of unconstitutional confinement where the detention has exceeded one year. The government, as a party those cases, was aware of the judiciary’s attitude toward prolonged detention. “(T)hey do not justify why they did not follow a clear legal trend,” Sweeney wrote.”
Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Sweeney’s decision: “At bottom, Respondents were not substantially justified in their pre-litigation and litigation practices because they disregarded a clear legal trend in the District and their own agency policies in the underlying action.”
Similar to the Trump Administration, the Biden Administration is wasting taxpayer money on cruel, unnecessary, expensive, illegal detention, and then squandering even more money on the arguably frivolous, and clearly mindless, defense thereof! Somebody should be asking Garland why?
“In sum, the BIA erred in finding that Chicas-Machado was not a refugee under the INA due to a lack of nexus to a protected ground, religion. Chicas-Machado demonstrated past persecution on account of religion, and is therefore entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Qiao Hua Li, 405 F.3d at 176-77. Recognizing the BIA’s error, we grant the petition for review and remand the case for further proceedings. Upon remand, the BIA must determine whether the Government can rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 If the BIA concludes that Chicas-Machado is eligible for asylum on remand, it should reconsider her withholding of removal claim. See Sorto-Guzman, 42 F.4th at 450. We decline to reach all other issues raised on appeal as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims, and direct the BIA to reevaluate those claims following its reconsideration of Chicas-Machado’s asylum application. See Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 350, 361 n.10 (4th Cir. 2021) (declining to reach the merits of withholding of removal appeal after finding error in the BIA’s asylum analysis).”
“This petition raises important questions about proper notice in removal proceedings. Federal immigration law mandates that the government provide a noncitizen with a written notice to appear that contains certain critical details about her removal hearing, including the “time and place” of the proceedings. In a pair of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has clarified that the notice to appear must be a single document containing all statutorily required information. See Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021); Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Petitioners Azucena Aracely Lazo-Gavidia and her minor son were ordered removed in absentia. The immigration judge denied their motion to reopen the removal proceedings and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. Because Lazo-Gavidia and her son received defective notices to appear, we grant their petition, vacate the Board’s order dismissing their appeal, and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Glenn Fogle! Listen to the oral argument here.]
“Because an offender can be convicted under Nebraska’s shoplifting statute when he acts with an intent not encompassed by a generic theft offense, we hold that the statute sweeps more broadly than the generic federal offense. Accordingly, the BIA erred in finding that Thok was removable for having committed a theft offense—and, thus, an aggravated felony—based upon his Nebraska shoplifting convictions. … For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“Mercy Naah, a native of Cameroon, was charged as removable from the United States. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Naah demonstrated that she is unable or unwilling to return to Cameroon because of past persecution on account of her political opinion. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports for the Round Table 🛡️⚔️:
5. Experts
Unpublished 1st Cir. Victory [Experts]
[T]o keep it brief, we were on the winning side in an unpublished 1st Cir. decision issued today in which the IJ and BIA wrongly gave little weight to an country expert’s opinion on the risk petitioner faced in a CAT case. Decision attached. The Round Table filed an amicus brief in this one. Another great win for SangYeob Kim, Gilles Bissonnette and the ACLU of New Hampshire!
More to follow. We continue to make a difference!
Best, Jeff
I have just learned that counsel is filing a motion to publish. There is good language regarding the evidentiary weight of one qualified as an expert who testifies credibly. The decision points out that an expert need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying their opinion, as long as such opinion is based on sufficient facts or data;” that “An expert cannot be “undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed;” and that where an IJ makes factual findings not consistent with the expert’s opinion, it is important for the IJ to explain the reasons behind those findings.
Why do Dems routinely shoot themselves in the foot on immigration while driving a wedge between Dems in power and the immigration/social justice advocates who helped them get there?
In each of the 4th Circuit cases here, our Dem AG aligned himself with restrictionist positions advocated by dissenting Bush II and Trump appointees, while eschewing the far better-reasoned, more practical approaches advocated by expert advocates and adopted by the jurists in the majority who are committed to due process.
As the 4th Circuit majority in Chicas-Machado cogently points out, the BIA’s “excessively narrow reading” of nexus conflicts with both the statutory language and practical considerations regarding the motivation of persecutors (not to mention riding roughshod over existing, binding Circuit precedent). The BIA has a long and troubling history of ignoring “mixed motive” to deny asylum.
Yet, instead of improving under Dems, the BIA’s abuse of nexus to wrongfully disqualify qualified refugees from protection has continued to metastasize under Garland! It’s all part of the anti-immigrant, “any reason to deny” culture at EOIR, promoted by Sessions and Barr and not effectively addressed by Garland.
Happy to see another Round Table victory on use of experts. But, the 1st Circuit should have published this instructive decision. Hopefully, they now will!
As we know, the BIA’s systemic mishandling of experts is a chronic problem, particularly as the BIA intentionally overcomplicates the law, as a “deterrent,” so experts are almost a requirement for success. (Even though it is well-known that many asylum applicants have difficulty just getting competent pro bono lawyers to represent them, let alone the services of “pro bono experts.”). Every example helps expose the BIA’s professional misconduct, for which Garland and his DOJ leadership have shown an unusual and disturbing tolerance.
If you don’t bring an expert, they deny for failure to sustain your B/P! If you do bring an expert, they minimize, misconstrue, or ignore their testimony!
“Catch 22” — the applicant loses either way!
Experts are also important because it’s an area where the Article IIIs’ experience with experts in civil litigation far exceeds the BIA’s. Therefore, they are apt to recognize the BIA’s sharp divergence from the weight and respect ordinarily given to experts in civil litigation. Hence, we have had substantial success with the Circuits in challenging the BIA’s continuing, inappropriately dismissive, treatment of experts.
The BIA routinely uses sloppy, often internally inconsistent, “boilerplate” in their decisions. Yet, they somehow find time to “nitpick” expert testimony looking for every minor or insignificant “omission” or “discrepancy” to discredit the expert! What a disgrace!
Finally, on Naah v. Garland, a special “shout out” to long-time NDPA stalwart and role model Danielle Beach-Oswald on her victory in a Cameroonian political persecution case in the 5th Circuit. As the decision reflects, asylum victories on non-procedural issues are hard to come by in the 5th. Danielle was a “Legacy Arlington Immigration Court regular” during my time on the bench. This just further cements her status as “one of the best in the business!”
Congrats, Danielle, and thanks for all you do!
Think how much better this system would function with a BIA of real subject-matter experts focused on due process and fundamental fairness — rather than helping out their “partners” at DHS enforcement and protecting their careers in the process! And, what if we also had a Dem AG focused on due process for immigrants in “his” courts, rather than being asleep at the switch and complicit in some of the worst, anti immigrant, biased, backlog building “jurisprudence” rolled out by the Federal “justice” system!
What if once in office, Dems actually courageously stood up for the immigrants, advocates, and values they claim to represent during elections?
“Petitioner Christian Alberto Santos Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has twice travelled unlawfully into the United States — first in 2012, and again in 2016. In both instances, Garcia fled threats to his life and attacks carried out against him by the 18th Street Gang and the Salvadoran police. After seeking protection from removal before an immigration judge (the “IJ”) in 2016, Garcia was afforded relief — in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (the “CAT”) — by three separate IJ rulings. On each occasion, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) reversed the IJ rulings. Garcia, for his part, was removed to El Salvador in May 2022, and has awaited further developments in these proceedings from his home country. In this appeal, Garcia challenges and seeks reversal of three rulings made by the BIA — those being: (1) that the “particular social group” relied upon in connection with Garcia’s application for withholding of removal is not legally cognizable; (2) that Garcia was not persecuted in El Salvador on account of his political opinions; and (3) that Garcia failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection. As explained herein, we grant Garcia’s petition for review and reverse the BIA rulings in part, affirm them in part, and vacate them in part. We otherwise remand to the BIA for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.”
“Petitioner Juan Pablo Paucar petitions for review of a January 22, 2021 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal and (2) denying his motion to remand. The BIA rejected Paucar’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, declined to remand for consideration of additional hardship relating to his cancellation application, and declined to remand to await adjudication of his U visa application. Paucar argues that the BIA (1) applied an incorrect standard when reviewing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) overlooked and mischaracterized his new hardship evidence, and (3) failed to follow precedent when denying his request for remand while awaiting the adjudication of his U visa application. We are persuaded by Paucar’s arguments. Accordingly, we GRANT Paucar’s petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
In Santos-Garcia v. Garland, the BIA’s 6-year quest to wrongfully deny protection to Santos has been thwarted, for now. But, the matter remains far from finally resolved, even though an IJ has now properly granted Santos relief three separate times, only to be wrongly reversed by the BIA on each occasion!
Rather than insuring that individual justice is done, the BIA has acted to promote injustice, create needless delay, and demoralize IJ’s who are getting it right! In the meantime, the respondent has been removed to the country where he has a well-founded fear of persecution to await his fate. This is because the 4th Circuit denied a stay they should routinely have granted in an exercise of truly horrendous judicial misjudgment.
Now, the court majority fecklessly pontificates about the need for timely resolution (you’ve got to be kidding) while hinting, but not requiring, that the “Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight” should return the respondent now. Don’t hold your breath!
Here are three of my favorite quotes from Judge King’s majority opinion in Santos Garcia v. Garland.
Put simply, the BIA declined to “interact seriously” with the record before it in reviewing Garcia’s claim for CAT protection, and its failure in that regard requires a remand.
Should we not expect a supposed “expert tribunal” like the BIA should be to “seriously interact” with the record in life-or-death cases?Why aren’t Dems in Congress and everywhere else “all over Garland like a cheap suit” to stop this kind of judicial misbehavior in his “wholly owned courts?”
In closing, we recognize that Garcia’s removal proceedings have languished before the IJ and the BIA — and now this Court — for more than six years, leaving him in limbo and presently in harm’s way in El Salvador. We are also mindful that Garcia was only 15 years old when he sought to protect his cousin from the 18th Street Gang’s advances, setting off more than a decade of hardship and uncertainty. With that, we emphasize the “strong public interest in bringing [this] litigation to a close . . . promptly.” See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2007). And although we do not direct the affirmative award of any relief, we acknowledge the compelling case for protection that Garcia has made. If, on remand, the BIA affirms either the IJ’s award of withholding of removal or the award of CAT relief, the DHS and the Attorney General should swiftly “facilitate [Garcia’s] return to the United States” from El Salvador. See Ramirez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 693, 706 (4th Cir. 2018) (directing the government to facilitate previously removed petitioner’s return to the United States pursuant to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Policy Directive). Moreover, if the BIA determines that Garcia’s “presence 24 is necessary for continued administrative removal proceedings” on remand, the authorities should see to his prompt return. Id.
So, after six years bouncing around the system and three separate grants of asylum by an Immigration Judge, the 4th Circuit essentially “begs” the BIA to get it right this time! This is after the court itself curiously denied the respondent’s application for stay notwithstanding the rather obvious risk of irreparable harm (e.g., death, torture) and the equally obvious substance of his timely filed appeal.
What a way to run a “justice system” (or, in this case, not)! Both the Executive and the Judiciary should be totally embarrassed by their gross mishandling of this case! But, I see resolve from neither Branch (nor the ever-absent Legislature) to put an end to this systemic mockery of due process, fundamental fairness, and simple common sense!
Here, discovering the BIA’s error in rejecting Garcia’s proposed social group of “young male family members of his cousin Emily” is no herculean task. Social groups based on family ties have been consistently approved by this Court as providing a sound basis for asylum or withholding of removal applications. See, e.g., Salgado-Sosa, 882 F.3d at 457; Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 949 (4th Cir. 2015); Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020). Indeed, our pivotal 2011 decision on the matter — Crespin-Valladares v. Holder — recognized in no uncertain terms that “the family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group.” See 632 F.3d at 125. In tossing out Garcia’s proposed social group in March 2021, however, the BIA largely disregarded our precedent, providing no citation to or discussion of Crespin-Valladares. The BIA instead relied chiefly on its own then-existing precedent, set forth in the Attorney General’s 2019 L-E-A- II decision. As described above, L-E-A- II — which was vacated by the Attorney General in June 2021 and thus “lacks legal force” — “conflicted with [this Court’s] well-established precedent” recognizing families as cognizable social groups. See Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 4 F.4th 213, 227 n.11 (4th Cir. 2021). Surprisingly, the BIA paid little mind to L-E-A- II’s vacatur in its Reconsideration Order of 2022, doubling down on its earlier “particular social group” ruling and again inexplicably declining to apply Crespin-Valladares and its progeny.7
Notably, the “rule of Crespin-Valledares” — my case where the BIA erroneously reversed me — continues to have an impact! A dozen years post-Crespin and the BIA is still getting it wrong! Why are these guys still on the appellate bench, setting negative precedents and ignoring favorable precedents? In a Dem Administration? Seriously!
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLG
My friend Michelle Mendez, Director of Legal Resources and Training over at National Immigration Project offered some commentary on the Second Circuit’s decision in Paucar v. Garland.
Congratulations and thank you for your superb work, Lindsay! This case offers so much and seems like the CA2 delivered.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the decision that stood out to me:
“In a January 14, 2020 written decision, the BIA dismissed Paucar’s appeal and denied his motion to reopen and remand. Three months later—after Paucar filed a petition to review the BIA’s decision in this Court—the BIA sua sponte reinstated Paucar’s appeal and motion, noting that it had not “consider[ed] all of the evidence submitted by [Paucar].” Id. at 124.” [Do we know why the BIA sua sponte reinstated the appeal and motion?] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “The BIA only sua sponte reopened the appeal and motion because Paige Austin (co-counsel extraordinaire, copied here) filed a PFR and identified the missing evidence early on, prompting OIL to agree to a remand.”
“Finally, the BIA concluded that remand to await the adjudication of Paucar’s U visa petition was unnecessary because Paucar could request a stay of removal from USCIS.” [Does anyone know what the BIA was referencing here? Later on the decision says DHS and not USCIS so perhaps it is a typo.] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “I think that the reference to USCIS that you flag was a typo and that it should have said DHS.”
“We conclude that the BIA should have applied the Sanchez Sosa factors in considering Paucar’s motion to remand as it pertains to his U visa or explained its reasoning for not doing so. [This is the first time that the CA2 answers the question of whether Sanchez Sosa applies to motions to remand or reopen filed during the pendency of an appeal where the noncitizen did not previously request such a continuance before the IJ].”
There is a great discussion on the BIA improperly applying Coelho (which they love to throw around in correctly) to the prejudice assessment and a paragraph discussing how the CA2 and other courts of appeals view unpublished BIA decisions.
Again, really great work and outcome! Thanks for sharing with all of us, Dan!
For a case distinguishing Coelho and applying a “reasonable likelihood of success” standard to a MTR, see Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 436 (BIA 1996), written by me! The BIA ignores it or misapplies it in many cases. But, it’s still “good law!” Just another instance in which the BIA evades “older” precedents that could produce favorable outcomes for respondents!
In this case the IJ denied the respondent’s applications and ordered removal in May 2018, five years ago. Nobody contests that the respondent was ineffectively represented at that time.
Through new pro bono counsel, respondent Paucar filed a timely appeal with the BIA. Less than two months following the IJ’s decision, new counsel filed a copiously documented motion to the BIA to remand for a new hearing because of the ineffective representation.
Rather than promptly granting that motion for a new hearing, the BIA set in motion five years of dilatory effort on their part to avoid providing a hearing. Obviously, several new merits hearings could have been completed during the time occupied by the BIA’s anti-immigrant antics!
Along the way, according to the Second Circuit, the BIA “improperly imposed a heightened standard,” “erred by discounting the impact of counsel’s ineffectiveness,” “improperly relied] on the IJ’s tainted findings,” “overlooked and mischaracterized the record evidence,” “erred by overlooking or mischaracterizing evidence,” “overlooked and mischaracterized material evidence,” and failed, without explanation, “to follow its own precedent.” What else could they have screwed up? The file number?
This would be highly unacceptable performance by ANY tribunal, let alone one entrusted with making life or death decisions about human lives and whose decisions in some instances have been unwisely insulated from effective judicial review by Congress. Individuals appearing before EOIR deserve better! American justice deserves better! How long will AG Garland continue to get away with failing to “clean house” at America’s most dysfunctional court system and bring order, due process, fundamental fairness, legal expertise, and judicial professionalism to this long-overlooked, yet absolutely essential, foundation of our entire U.S. justice system!
Wasting time and resources looking for bogus ways to deny that which better, more expert, fairer judges could easily grant his had a huge negative impact on the EOIR backlog and is a driver of legal dysfunction throughout the immigration bureaucracy, and indeed throughout our entire legal system, all the way up to and including the Supremes!
Start by fixing “that within your control!” That’s a simple message that Dems, unfortunately, don’t seem to get when it comes to immigration, human rights, and racial justice in America!
