"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.
Hernandez v. Garland, 2d Cir., 04-21-23, Walker, Pooler, Park, Circuit Judges
POOLER, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
2 Standards matter. A standard of review is the essential mechanism that
3 defines an appellate court’s proper role in reviewing the record presented. All
4 appellate courts must adhere to the proper standard of review. The Board of
5 Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “the Board”) is no exception. Here, the BIA
6 applied a standard that substantially deviated from the clear error standard and
7 improperly made factual findings that contradicted those made by the
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The BIA’s failure to adhere to the proper standard is
9 “the type of error that requires remand.” De La Rosa v. Holder, 598 F.3d 103, 108
10 (2d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
11 This Court lacks jurisdiction to review purely discretionary decisions by
12 the BIA, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), but we retain jurisdiction over
13 “constitutional claims or questions of law,” Noble v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 73, 77 (2d
14 Cir. 2007) (quoting § 1252(a)(2)(D)). When reviewing decisions, “[t]he Board will
15 not engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by an immigration
16 judge. Facts determined by the immigration judge, including findings as to the
17 credibility of testimony, shall be reviewed only to determine whether the
18 findings of the immigration judge are clearly erroneous.” 8 C.F.R. §
1
1 1003.1(d)(3)(i). “[W]hen the BIA engages in factfinding in contravention of 8
2 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv), it commits an error of law, which [the Court has]
3 jurisdiction to correct.” Padmore v. Holder, 609 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2010); see also
4 Rizal v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84, 89 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining that the Court will
5 vacate BIA decisions “that result from flawed reasoning or the application of
6 improper legal standards”). Though the BIA “may review questions of law” and
7 “all other issues” on appeal de novo, see § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii), it is explicitly barred
8 from “engag[ing] in factfinding in the course of deciding cases” aside from
9 taking “administrative notice of facts that are not reasonably subject to dispute,”
10 § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A).
11 Here, the BIA recited the precise legal standard at the beginning of its May
12 2019 decision. Special App’x at 7 (citing § 1003.1(d)(3)). But we do not simply
13 “rely on the Board’s invocation of the clear error standard; rather, when the issue
14 is raised, [the Court’s] task is to determine whether the BIA faithfully employed
15 the clear error standard or engaged in improper de novo review of the IJ’s factual
16 findings.” Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Chen v.
17 Bureau of Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 470 F.3d 509, 514 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that
18 despite “cit[ing] the proper legal standard at the outset of its decision, [the BIA]
2
1 failed to apply this deferential standard of review”). Despite its invocation of the
2 clear error standard, the BIA did not ultimately apply this standard of review to
3 Oscar Hernandez’s case. Merely reciting the standard does not transform the
4 BIA’s impermissible factfinding into a permissible exercise of discretion. Such lip
5 service should not suffice.
6 The majority opinion characterizes the BIA’s impermissible factfinding as a
7 simple “de novo reweighing of the equities based on the facts found by the IJ.”
8 Maj. Op. at 3. That is not the case. Without identifying any of the IJ’s findings as
9 clearly erroneous, the BIA implicitly rejected the IJ’s factual findings and
10 substituted the facts found by the IJ with its own factual findings. If the BIA
11 rejects the IJ’s findings, we expect it to “supply cogent reasons for its rulings,”
12 which the BIA failed to provide. See Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2016).
13 The BIA completely disregarded the IJ’s credibility determination when it
14 concluded, contrary to the IJ’s findings, that it “d[id] not find [Hernandez’s]
15 explanation convincing” regarding the circumstances of his 2016 arrest. Special
16 App’x at 10. This divergence in characterization of the 2016 incident was central
17 to the BIA’s decision. In its attempt to parse out the definition of “convincing,”
18 the majority claims the BIA did not overturn the IJ’s factual findings, arguing the
3
1 BIA’s intended use of the word meant it was not “persuaded” by Hernandez’s
2 explanation, not that his testimony was not “truthful.” Maj. Op. at 11. This is an
3 unconvincing distinction. Next, the majority suggests the BIA doubted that
4 Hernandez warranted discretionary relief, not the truthfulness of his testimony.
5 Id. at 12. That clarification, however, does not do much to support the majority’s
6 argument. The BIA’s “de novo” reconsideration of whether Hernandez merited a
7 favorable exercise of discretion was premised on its factual determination that he
8 had “continued to engage in violent behavior” following his first arrest and
9 conviction in 2009. Special App’x at 10. The only evidence cited for this
10 determination was that Hernandez’s “most recent arrest in 2016 . . . included
11 abusive behavior toward his spouse”—a characterization directly at odds with
12 the IJ’s findings. Special App’x at 10.
. . . .
*******************************
You can read the full decision, including Judge Poolers’ full dissent, at the link.
As Judge Pooler points out, manipulation of the standards of review can be used either to improperly substitute judgement on fact-findings (BIA) or too avoid critical review of BIA’s actions (Circuit majority).
Thanks to Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for passing this along.
“Hipppity, hippity, hop! Deny, deny, deny! For any reason, in any season, or for no reason at all! Hippity, hippity, hop!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
Fwd: CA2 Vacates Matter of Y-I-M-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 724 (B.I.A. 2019)
“Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ukraine, seeks review of a December 12, 2019 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Based on ostensible inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony and a purported failure to submit corroborating evidence, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) entered an adverse credibility finding. However, we conclude that the adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence and that the IJ unjustifiably refused to allow Petitioner to present readily available witness testimony, thereby depriving him of a full and fair hearing. As such, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
First, many congrats to NDPA super lawyer John Giammatteo! Obviously (to everyone but Garland), experts like John belong on the Immigration Bench, not just in front of it!
Something is horribly wrong with a system that designates fabrications and denials of due process as “precedents” to guide other judges! Something is also disturbingly wrong with an Attorney General, a former Article III Federal Appeals Judge no less, who has failed to bring in real expert progressive judges to run EOIR, redo defective precedents as proper legal guidance, eradicate the disgraceful anti-asylum bias, and enforce due process, fundamental fairness, and decisional excellence in America’s most important “retail level” court system!
There currently are opportunities for better judges to get into the system, start eradicating bad judging like this, and replacing it with expert, due process focused, efficient, “real judging” by better judges. Get those applications in!
The “message” of Matter of Y-I-M- is clear: make it up, ignore it, cut it off, hustle off to lunch — whatever it takes to “get to no” — we’ll have your back!
“The decision is scorching,” says Dan Kowalski. And, well it should be! This is a disgusting,institutionalized travesty of justice 🤮, in life or death cases ☠️, going on right under AG Merrick Garland’s nose! It’s undermining American democracy! And, it’s totally preventable!
Remarkably, the BIA selected this pathetically bad adjudication — one that raises questions as to whether anyone at EOIR even read the record — combined with a horrendous denial of due process, and an IJ who obviously felt “empowered” to elevate time over fairness and substance — as a precedent! That means it was supposed to be a “model” for IJs — essentially a message that you should go ahead and deny asylum for any reason — even if largely fabricated — and the BIA will give you a “pass.” This actually raises some serious ethical problems with the whole EOIR mess and Garland’s indolent stewardship over this critical part of our justice system!
The IJ actually said this: “So, don’t get frustrated if I shutdown your arguments. It’s just that —we’re now at 12:00, and we’re nowhere . . . near done in the case.”
Amazingly, this IJ “touted” that cutting off relevant testimony, actually “helped” the respondent by giving him more possible reasons to appeal! Does this sound like a system that encourages “efficiency” and “excellence?”
No wonder they have backlogs coming out the wazoo! Yet, rather than slamming this IJ and using it as a precedent of how NOT to handle an asylum case, the BIA basically “greenlighted” an egregiously defective performance and made it a “model” for other judges! Outrageous!
It’s an example of why this system needs progressive, due process oriented leadership and radical reforms! Now!
A competent IJ could have granted this corroborated case and still have made their “noon lunch date!” Recognizing and institutionalizing consistent grants of relief is what “moves” the Immigration Court system without violating anyone’s rights and without tying up the Article III Courts!
Instead, because of the unchecked “culture of denial” and the incompetence allowed to flourish at EOIR, after four years this case is still bouncing around the system. That’s a key reason why EOIR is dysfunctional and their backlogs are out of control!
Correct, positive precedents establishing and enforcing best practices are essential to due process and fundamental fairness — once, but no longer, EOIR’s “vision.”
One of the “uninitiated” might logically expect that having exposed and eliminated this disingenuous “any reason to deny asylum” precedent, advocates for due process and fundamental fairness have “won this battle.” Not so in the “parallel universe” of Garland’s EOIR!
As pointed out by Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table:
If they follow past practice, the BIA will continue to apply this decision as a model for IJs in every circuit but the 2d.
Come on, man!
The author of the Second Circuit decision, U.S. District Judge Gary Brown has an interesting background, according to “Sir Jeffrey:”
Also, the judge who wrote the decision for the panel, Gary Brown, is a Trump appointee to the Eastern District of NY sitting by designation on this panel. When John’s argument was being mooted, we actually discovered that Judge Brown is also a renowned magician, who invented an effect called the Viking Spirit Trumpet.
Actually, Judge Brown was nominated for the bench by both President Obama and President Trump! Wonder if he has any magic spells up his sleeve that would make EOIR disappear and reappear as a real, due-process-focused court!
Magic Hat & Wand Could U.S. District Judge Gary Brown, also a famous magician, conjure up a spell that would make due process “reappear” at EOIR? PHOTO: Public Realm
Amazing how busy Article III Judges can take the time to read and understand records in asylum cases, but the BIA can’t! This system is broken!
Meaningful reform starts with a new, better qualified, expert BIA focused solely on due process, fundamental fairness, and decisional excellence. It’s very straightforward! Why doesn’t Garland “get it?” How many more will be wrongfully denied while our disconnected AG floats around in his surreal, yet deadly, “intellectual never never land?”
Lost in an intellectual fog, and far removed from the “retail level of justice,” AG Merrick Garland can’t be bothered with the injustices heaped on asylum seekers and their dedicated representatives in his dysfunctional, deny for any reason, Immigration Courts! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Every time I read this decision I get more and more outraged about the continuing horrors of EOIR! Attorneys could face sanctions for making material misrepresentations in briefs. Yet, nothing happens to EOIR Judges who “make it up as they go along” to deny asylum!
I was told by some withknowledge of the EOIR disaster that, at least until recently, those at higher levels of the Administration who (curiously) are “pulling the strings” at EOIR were unaware that Immigration Judges are not automatically “packaged” with Judicial Law Clerks! Duh! Anybody who has actually worked at the “line level” of EOIR as well as a whole bunch of widely available reports and studies could have told them that!
So, according to my sources, in at least some locations “flooded” with new IJs, the already poor IJ to JLC ratio has gotten much, much worse!
Just another piece of “low hanging fruit” that Garland has failed to “harvest.” I’ve also been told that problems with grade levels discourage individuals from making a career out of working in the law clerk program.
All of this makes it critical that new Immigration Judges be experts in immigration law with “hands on” experience. So, NDPA practical scholars, get those applications for judgeships in NOW! Indolence about due process at the top creates opportunities for spreading and institutionalizing due process at the “retail level!” But, that requires great judges with the right experience. So, don’t wait! Apply today!🗽⚖️👨🏾⚖️👨🏼⚖️👩🏾⚖️🧑🏻⚖️
On Friday we had a challenging issue with our Asylum case in immigration court.
The case was heavily documented and our NYC team did such an amazing job with the package that DHS was already willing to stipulate to a Withholding of Removal (which actually requires proving a higher probability of persecution than asylum, but is a much more restrictive form of relief). Client is a bona fide Falun Gong practitioner and has publicly opposed the Chinese government’s vicious and ruthless persecution of FLG followers in China, so it was a victory on its merits just from looking at the filing and before taking testimony.
However, the reason the government would not stipulate to Asylum is because there was a one year issue in the case. Normally, clients are required to apply for asylum within one year of their last entry into the United States, unless they can prove they qualify for one of the exceptions in the statute.
This was an unfortunate case where USCIS lost the filing and by the time client found out about this, she was so mentally distraught with the persecution of her family back home that she simply could not muster the necessary focus to work on the application. Her symptoms persisted for two years until after her family was released and she finally was able to file.
We showed several receipts, USPS labels, brought a witness who was aware of the challenges client was facing at the time, and took detailed testimony where client explained the mental anguish she was suffering at the time and how this affected her ability to focus.
Denver IJ Grants CAT, Withholding Relief (El Salvador, PSG)
Prof. Elizabeth Jordan writes: “DU clinic students Anni Winan and Sharon Malhotra got a win in Judge Caley’s courtroom a few weeks ago on behalf of a Salvadoran who fears return to El Salvador under the State of Emergency declared by President Bukele. Notably, Caley found “Salvadoran men with tattoos erroneously perceived to be gang members” cognizable as a PSG, departing from Matter of EAG, and found that the conditions in Salvadoran prisons under the SOE amount to torture. [ICE did NOT appeal.] We would highly recommend Dr. McNamara as an expert as well.”
[Hats way off to Prof. Jordan (Director, Immigration Law & Policy Clinic, University of Denver Sturm College of Law) and her students!]
***********************
Congrats to everyone involved! Fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork succeeds!
Common threads:
Great representation of the respondent;
Great preparation;
A well-prepared, thoughtful ICE Assistant Chief Counsel committed to working for a fair, correct, result;
An Immigration Judge who inspired the parties to excellence, paid attention to the law and the issues, listened carefully, and allowed both counsel to do their jobs;
An Immigration Judge who encouraged the parties to work cooperatively, narrow the issues, and focus on the key dispositive issue;
Great teamwork and professionalism produced a great result, with efficiency, and without gimmicks or corner cutting.
What’s needed:
Precedents establishing, enforcing, and reinforcing due process and best practices;
Working with the private bar and NGOs to establish universal representation;
Prioritizing represented grantable cases on the docket;
Dynamic judicial leadership focused on institutionalizing due process, fundamental fairness, and correct, high-quality decisions;
Highest quality judicial training and continuing judicial education. (It exists out here in the “real world” with inspiring, effective, creative, problem-solving“practical scholar/teachers.” But, according to EOIR sources, currently available only through the NAIJ!)
Due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and maximum efficiency, consistent with due process, can be achieved at EOIR! It just takes expertise, will, a plan, and the right personnel to make it happen! Leadership makes a difference!
A.G. Merrick Garland’s continuing operation of the “EOIR Clown Show,” at taxpayer expense, is costly in more ways than one! “Any reason to deny” proves too much even for the hyper-conservative 5th Circuit! PHOTO: Public Domain
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“On May 18, 2022, this court granted Giscard Nkenglefac’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) dismissal of petitioner’s appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for relief from removal. See Nkenglefac v. Garland, 34 F.4th 422, 430 (2022). Because the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by evidence in the record, we determined that the BIA erred in affirming it and remanded the case to the BIA. The petitioner filed a timely application for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). We find that petitioner is entitled to attorneys’ fees under the EAJA and award $56,169.79.”
Homero Lopez, Jr. Director & Co-Founder Immigration Services & Legal Advocacy New Orleans, LA PHOTO: ISLA websiteEmma Morley Paralegal Immigration Services & Legal Advocacy New Orleans, LA PHOTO: ISLA website
******************
Wouldn’t it be cheaper and better for everyone if Garland finally “cleaned house” at EOIR, appointed and retained only well-qualified expert judges at both the trial and appellate level, replaced incompetent administrators, and ended the toxic — and costly — “any reason to deny culture” at EOIR?
When the DOJ is being “pasted” on wrongful decisions denying asylum by the 5th Circuit, everyone but Garland knows that “the EOIR Clown Show has got to go!”🤡
Make no mistake about it! Garland’s failure to reform EOIR into a due-process-focused expert tribunal willing to stand up for the legal rights of asylum seekers and to require “best practices” with respect to access to representation at the border and elsewhere is a major contributing factor to the Biden Administration’s deadly humanitarian disaster and abrogation of the rule of law for asylum seekers at the Southern Border. It didn’t have to be this way!
Why is this “preventable disaster” happening under a Dem Administration that ran on an (apparently false) pledge to restore due process and the rule of law for asylum seekers and other migrants? How can we stop it and prevent it from happening again in the future?
I daresay that many humanitarian experts warned the Biden Administration that without fundamental positive changes, better, courageous, expert, inspirational leadership, and long-overdue administrative reforms at DOJ, DHS, and the White House, disasters would unfold across the board. That’s exactly what has happened! It’s also infecting the entire legal system and inhibiting social justice in America.
But , unless and until social justice advocates come up with a better political approach to the disturbing lack of integrity and values in both political parties when it comes to immigration, they will continue to be vilified and attacked by the GOP and “consistently kicked to the side of the road” by Dems!
I wish I knew the answer! I don’t! But, I do know that human rights and social justice disasters will continue to unfold unless and until social justice advocates figure out how to get some “political clout” behind their intellectual power and store of (largely ignored) great ideas!
Don’t just complain about the awful mess @ EOIR! Get on the bench and do something about it! Public Domain
From Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis:
Good morning Dan,
I am writing to let you know that the U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), is looking to hire additional immigration judges. I wanted to provide the following information in the event it might be useful to Bender’s Immigration Bulletin subscribers and others who may wish to learn about the immigration judge career path. Could you please provide this information to anyone who you think may be interested?
Sign up to attend a Recruitment Outreach Session – on March 23 and on March 30, sign up to attend a live webinar, where we’ll be explaining how to become an immigration judge. The hour-long sessions are moderated by assistant chief immigration judges, with time for Q&A at the end.
2.The next immigration judge job opportunity announcement is scheduled to open in early April. Individuals may receive a notification when the announcement is posted on USAJOBS, by signing up for EOIR’s Adjudicators Announcement listserv: U.S. Department of Justice (govdelivery.com).
3.For more information on the immigration judge career path, benefits, qualifications, etc., please visit our EOIR Careers webpage.
Thank you so much for your attention and support as we work to hire additional immigration judges.
Kathryn
Kathryn Mattingly
———————————————–
Assistant Press Secretary
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
Executive Office for Immigration Review
U.S. Department of Justice
**********************
It’s very encouraging to see EOIR now doing some “affirmative recruiting” to widen and improve the selection pool for these important “life or death” positions. It’s YOUR chance to promote and deliver due process at the most important level of our justice system — the “retail level!” That’s where “the rubber meets the road” (or continues to have “flat tires” as is now the case throughout the Federal Judiciary at all levels.)
I seldom attend any professional gathering these days without being bombarded with “horror stories” and angry complaints about the poor quality of judging, lack of understanding, and absence of practical problem solving skills at all levels of EOIR. NDPAers, this is OUR chance to do more than “just complain” (particularly to me, since I’m not in charge of anything) by improving and diversifying the system “from the ground up,” institutionalizing better interpretations, great applications of law, and best practices in the process!
I also have a vision that at some point in history, a more “with it” Administration that actually understands the cosmic importance of immigration and human rights, takes Constitutional Due Process seriously, has some guts, and views all human lives as mattering, will use the Immigration Courts as a “natural pool” for better Article III judicial appointments.
Additionally, when Article I eventually happens, there inevitably will be some type of “grandfathering” of existing IJs. WHO would YOU like to see “grandfathered” into a new independent system? All of the current incumbents, or a more diverse group including many practical scholars and fearless due process mavens?
As my good friend and neighbor, Professor Alberto Benitez of the GW Law Immigration Clinic always says, “The world is yours!”
CAUTION: You are about to enter AG Merrick Garland’s “Twilight Zone” — where judges operating in a parallel universe make surreal decisions without regard to facts, law, or common sense applicable in this world! The Twilight Zone Billy Mumy 1961.jpg :PHOTO: Public Realm
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA9 on Standard of Review: Umana-Escobar v. Garland
“Josue Umana-Escobar petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order upholding the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He also challenges the BIA’s determinations that defects in the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) did not require termination of his proceedings and that the BIA lacked authority to administratively close his case. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the defective NTA claim for lack of jurisdiction and deny the petition as to the CAT claim. We grant the petition and remand as to the administrative closure issue, given the government’s recommendation that we should do so based on an intervening decision by the Attorney General. We also grant the petition and remand as to the asylum and withholding of removal claims because the BIA applied the wrong standard in reviewing the IJ’s determination that the evidence failed to establish the requisite nexus between a protected ground and past or future harm.”
The initial hearing was in 2013, merits hearing in 2017, Circuit remand in 2023. After a decade, a fairly routine asylum case is still unresolved!
This case probably shouldn’t even be in Immigration Court, as it was affected by “Gonzo” Sessions’s wrong-headed, backlog-building, interference with administrative closing, later reversed by Garland, but not until substantial, systemic damage to EOIR had already been caused.
When it’s “any reason to deny, any old boilerplate gets by!”🤬 Bogus “no nexus” findings — often ignoring the “at least one central reason” standard and making mincemeat out of the “mixed motive doctrine” — are a particular EOIR favorite! That’s because they can be rotely used to deny asylum even where the testimony is credible,the harm clearly rises to the level of persecution, is likely to occur, and relocation is unreasonable!
In other words, it allows EOIR to function as part of the “deterrence regime” by sending refugees back to harm or death. What better way of saying “we don’t want you” which has become the mantra of Biden’s “Miller Lite” policy officials!
GOP, Dems, neither are competent to run a court system. That’s why we need an independent Article I court!⚖️
“Gerardo Caballero-Vega, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States in 1993 without admission or parole by an immigration officer when he was eight years old. He was removed to Mexico in 2019. Shortly after his removal, Caballero-Vega returned to the United States and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Later that year, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted his application for asylum, which the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“the BIA”). In 2020, the BIA vacated the IJ’s decision for clear error and ordered Caballero-Vega’s removal to Mexico. The following year, Caballero-Vega filed a petition for review in this court. We reverse the BIA’s vacation of the IJ’s decision and remand the case for further review. … Caballero-Vega became a criminal informant for the San Mateo County District Attorney in 2012. He reported to law enforcement on the drug, firearm, and human trafficking conducted by Nuestra Familia, a California prison gang, as well as the Norteño Gang, Nuestra Familia’s “foot soldiers” in the streets. R. Vol. I at 143. Following his informant work, he testified against Nuestra Familia members in criminal court. Caballero-Vega was placed in a witness protection program during and after his testimony. … On November 13, 2019, the IJ granted Caballero-Vega’s application for asylum, finding that he had established a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his membership in the group of “informants who have testified in court against gangs.” … DHS appealed the decision to the BIA. On December 15, 2020, the BIA sustained DHS’s appeal, vacated the IJ’s grant of Caballero-Vega’s asylum, and ordered Caballero-Vega’s removal to Mexico. Specifically, the BIA found that there was “clear error in the [IJ]’s finding that there’s a reasonable possibility that [Caballero-Vega’s] 2012 status as an informant and his 2013 or 2014 United States testimony against United States gang members will be a central reason for possible future harm to [him] upon removal to Mexico.” … We find insufficient the BIA’s explanation for its finding that the IJ’s decision is clearly erroneous. The fact that Caballero-Vega was not persecuted in Mexico is of little-to-no probative value here because he escaped before he could be identified by cartel members. Likewise, the fact that he was not threatened or harmed in the United States following his time as an informant is unhelpful because he was in witness protection for that entire period. Finally, the expert testimony cited by the IJ demonstrates that Mexican cartel members and United States gang members cooperate extensively, so the fact that Caballero-Vega testified against individuals based in the United States, not Mexico, is not dispositive. Thus, none of the reasons the BIA offers for vacating the IJ’s decision justifies the BIA’s finding of clear error. We remand Caballero-Vega’s case to the BIA to accept the IJ’s decision or to provide further justification for its finding that the IJ’s decision is clearly erroneous.”
Asylum was correctly granted in November 2019. 3.5 years later, the case is still kicking around because the wrong “judges” are on the BIA.
Ever wonder why EOIR has unmanageable backlogs? Even when the system works as it should and protection is granted at the initial level, the BIA and their “partners” at DHS Enforcement combine to screw it up! We need Article I!
Dems keep babbling about “Federal Court reform.” But, they can’t even achieve long-overdue progressive reforms to a court system they totally “own!”
Why won’t the Biden Administration govern in accordance with the humane, practical, legal values they ran upon, when it comes to human rights, immigration, and racial justice? Don’t kid yourself! Rather than being “expendable” or “negotiable,” THESE are the issues on which our democracy will eventually stand or fall! That’s something that the younger generation must focus on!
Sessions and Miller wasted almost no time in co-opting and weaponizing EOIR against asylum seekers, migrants, people of color, and even smearing and attacking those defending them. Evil though they were, they had passion and a plan for dehumanization, destruction, and undermining democracy!
Social justice in America needs passionate, brave, principled advocates and defenders! There are plenty of them “out here!” Indeed, My Round Table colleague Judge Ilyce Shugall and I are surrounded by them here at the VIISTA celebration and training at Villanova!
Villanova University President Rev. Peter M. Donohue, Villanova Law Dean Mark Alexander, Professor Michele Pistone, creator and founder of VIISTA Villanova and the CARES Clinic, the VIISTA and CARES alums who have come here from literally every corner of America to celebrate, teach and learn — THEY are passionate about social justice and are actively expanding and defending it. THEY are doing something about the number one immigration problem today — guaranteeing due process through effective representation — by training and turning out “accredited representatives,” highly skilled professional advocates who don’t necessarily have to be lawyers!
Professor Michele Pistone Villanova Law — Creator of VIISTA Villanova Program for training accredited representatives and building nationwide social justice networks. She is passionate about social justice. Why aren’t Biden Administration politicos?
As Father Donohue said at yesterday’s celebration, “‘Woke’ means social justice!” Amazing people have come here from the Southern Border where they work with asylum applicants on both sides of the border. Every day, they see the human trauma, racism, pain, and suffering caused by the Administration’s failure to innovate, lead, and stand up for human rights. These are the preventable human dramas and traumas that smug, ill-informed Administration “policy makers” run away from — they don’t have the courage to face and learn from those they abuse!
Values – human rights and legal rights — CAN’T EVER be “trumped” by “reelection concerns.” I might also add that the “Miller Lite” strategy followed by the Administration hasn’t found supporters or made them friends anywhere on the political spectrum! If you are going to make folks mad, why not at least be doing the right thing? Are competence, innovation, humanity, keeping campaign promises, and following the law REALLY political “losers” as Biden apparently believes? I doubt it!
The Biden Administration and many congressional Dems apparently lack passion and guts! Without the basic governing skills and integrity to undo the horrible human and systemic damage inflicted by Trump and institutionalize due process and fundamental fairness, the Dems are wandering in the social justice wilderness! No passion, no values, no expertise! Doesn’t say much for a party that promised to be a “socially just” alternative to anti-American Trumpist White Nationalism!
“Good enough for government work” might be the mantra for Garland’s EOIR — but, it doesn’t ‘cut it’ with Article III Courts, even the conservative, non-immigrant-friendly 5th Circuit!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Francis Zamaro-Silverio petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. The BIA held that Zamaro-Silverio had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) and thus found her ineligible for those forms of discretionary relief. Because the BIA did not perform the proper analysis, we grant review, vacate, and remand for determination of whether Zamaro-Silverio’s conviction was for a CIMT. … The BIA found that Garcia-Maldonado controlled the outcome for Zamaro-Silverio. But in the wake of Mathis, that analysis is incorrect. The proper focus is now on the minimum conduct prohibited by the statute, not on Zamaro-Silverio’s particular actions. The minimum conduct that can trigger liability under ZamaroSilverio’s statute of conviction is the failure to remain at the scene of the accident and provide one’s name and other information. See Tex. Transp. Code § 550.021(a)(4). Thus, Zamaro-Silverio’s deportability hinges on whether failure to share information is a CIMT. Villegas-Sarabia, 874 F.3d at 877. Garcia-Maldonado does not reach this question, and, similarly, the BIA did not answer it. Given that “our ordinary rule is to remand to ‘giv[e] the BIA the opportunity to address the matter in the first instance in light of its own expertise,’” we go no further. Negusie, 555 U.S. at 517 (quoting Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. at 17) (alteration in original). Therefore, the petition for review is GRANTED. We VACATE and REMAND to the BIA with instruction to determine whether the failure to share information under § 550.021(a)(4) is a CIMT.”
The Fifth Circuit precedent that the BIA failed to apply here, Villegas-Sarabia v. Sessions, 874 F.3d 871, 877 (5th Cir. 2017), was issued in 2017, before this respondent was even convicted. Yet, the BIA erroneously applied the pre-2017 version of Circuit law to deny her application. How is this competent adjudication from what is supposed to be a “specialized court” of expert adjudicators?
Remarkably, the BIA was even given a chance to correct its obvious error through a motion to reconsider filed while this petition for review was pending with the Circuit. Astoundingly, the BIA denied the motion to reconsider and “stuck with” a decision that violated Circuit precedent. What a way to (not) “run the railroad.”🚂
The Fifth Circuit panel in this case, Judge Jerry E. Smith (Reagan) (opinion), Judge Edith Brown Clement (Bush II), and Judge Cory T. Wilson (Trump) are all GOP appointees, among the most conservative Federal Judges in America — right out of “The Federalist Society Hall of Fame!”
Even the most far-right GOP Federal Judges have a “bottom line” that the BIA can’t manage to remain above.
Somewhat ironically, Dem Attorney General Merrick Garland, once nominated for the Supremes by President Barack Obama, appears to have no such bottom line for the BIA’s sloppy, unprofessional “any reason to say no and deny” judging! Unfortunately, it’s symptomatic for a Dem Administration that just doesn’t care very much when it comes to due process, fundamental fairness, and justice for migrants! Garland’s tolerance for bad judging is also clogging the Circuit Courts with unnecessary litigation generated by the BIA’s substandard performance!
Although he famously has reassigned most of the “high profile” work of the DOJ to various “Special Counsel,” curiously, Dem AG Merrick Garland, a former Article III Judge, doesn’t seem to have the time or the skills to fix the festering due process, bias, quality control, and professionalism problems in “his” wholly-owned “court” system — EOIR! So, the systemic injustice and chaos continue, unabated! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
When Judge Jerry E. Smith and his colleagues have the integrity to stand up for the legal rights of a respondent, even one who has committed a crime, but a Democratic AG doesn’t have the courage to bring fair and professional judging and quality control to EOIR (after two years on the job), progressives and advocates ought to be asking what the heck they voted for in 2020? I doubt that it was this awful, entirely preventable, mess!
“Any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny . . . .” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“For decades, the authoritarian regime in Cuba has utilized its police force to intimidate and physically assault political dissidents and peaceful demonstrators throughout the island. Ignacio Balaez Serra, a Cuban immigrant seeking asylum in the United States, maintains he experienced this abuse first-hand after multiple arrests, imprisonments, and beatings by the Cuban police. Serra seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Serra’s application for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) (together, “Application”). The IJ denied Serra’s Application, finding Serra’s testimony “not credible.” In reaching this adverse credibility determination, the IJ cited two inconsistencies between Serra’s hearing testimony and Application. The first purported inconsistency dealt with the timing of Serra’s passage of a kidney stone; specifically, whether he passed it on the day he was beaten by Cuban police or several days thereafter. The second pertained to the number of countries Serra passed through en route to the United States; he listed ten countries in his written Application but later testified that he traveled through “about 11 or 12.” The IJ also reached his adverse credibility determination based on Serra’s perceived non-responsiveness to certain questions. On appeal, the BIA rejected the IJ’s finding that Serra was non-responsive but affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on the two inconsistencies alone. After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude the record lacks substantial evidence that would allow us to affirm the adverse credibility determination. We therefore reverse and remand. … [T]he IJ perceived two instances of non-responsiveness and two discrepancies in the record, resulting in an adverse credibility determination. The BIA rejected the IJ’s findings of non-responsiveness. Thus, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination hinged only on two purported inconsistencies in the record. But upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, it is clear these inconsistences are unsupported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence—and thus cannot form the basis for an adverse credibility determination. Therefore, we grant Serra’s petition. We further vacate the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s opinion and remand this case to the IJ to rule on Serra’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT in accordance with this opinion. In doing so, the IJ must ensure that all relevant factors are considered—and the totality of the circumstances ascertained—before reaching a conclusion as to credibility. PETITION GRANTED, VACATED and REMANDED.”
[Hats off to Marty High and Joshua Carpenter and Jonathan Morton for amici American Immigration Council and Immigration Justice Campaign!]
**************************
Super congrats to NDPA superstar litigators Marty High, Joshua Carpenter, and Jonathan Morton.
This respondent was a unrepresented before the IJ. Thus, we see another example of how EOIR routinely mistreats pro se litigants and why counsel is a due process necessity even in a very straightforward asylum case like this. Obviously, here, the IJ played the role of “co-counsel” to the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel. Yet, AG Garland has intentionally established “dedicated dockets” and bogus “adjudication timelines” that have been shown to reduce opportunities for representation and diminish the chances of success for asylum seekers.
To borrow a memorable phrase used by my late BIA colleague Appellate Judge FredW. Vacca, “this pathetic attempt at an adjudication” by EOIR was actually defended before the Circuit by the DOJ’s OIL. The glaring problems with immigration and asylum adjudication at DOJ begin at EOIR, but by no means end there.
This case isn’t “rocket science,” nor is it legally or factually complicated. It’s a very straightforward asylum grant to somebody persecuted by Cuba, where, in the words of the 11th Circuit, “[f]or decades, the authoritarian regime . . . has utilized its police force to intimidate and physically assault political dissidents and peaceful demonstrators throughout the island!”
I also note the statutory provision on credibility that the IJ completely bolluxed here and the “any reason to deny” BIA then “rubber stamped” (in part, even while noting that some of the IJ’s analysis was wrong) was part of the REAL ID Act, passed in 2005. That’s 15 years before the the IJ hearing in this case! Heck, I used to give training classes for incoming EOIR JLCs where decisions very much like this IJ’s were used as “teaching examples” of how NOT TO APPLY Real ID! EOIR not only isn’t making “progress,” it’s actually stuck in reverse!
Having spent eight years as an Appellate Judge at the BIA and having reviewed thousands of records, I know that when an IJ goofs up one part of the analysis it’s often indicative of an overall careless, flawed analysis that should be viewed with considerable skepticism. Yet, here the IJ’s “clear error,” acknowledged by the BIA, in basically inventing “unresponsiveness” doesn’t appear to have inspired the BIA to critically examine the rest of the adverse credibility ruling below. On the contrary, it appears to have spurred the BIA to find “any other reason to deny” despite the indication that this was an inaccurate and unreliable analysis by an IJ having a bad day.
It also appears from the Circuit’s decision that there might have been interpretation issues before both the IJ and the Asylum Office. That makes the IJ’s “cherry picking” and “excessive focus on insignificant testimonial inconsistencies” particularly egregious.
The 11th Circuit decision here was written by U.S. District Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II, SD FL, sitting by designation. Judge Ruiz is a Trump appointee. He was joined on the panel by Judge Jill Pryor (Obama) and Judge Charles R. Wilson (Clinton) of the 11th Circuit. Thus, apparently the abysmal performance of EOIR is one of the few things capable of uniting and creating “bipartisan agreement among Article III Judges!”
Perhaps Senator Gillibrand is right, and she will be able to obtain sufficient bipartisan support for her Article I Immigration Court bill, which would remove this system from the DOJ’s chronic mismanagement. Seehttps://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/02/17/⚖️🗽-teas-coffee- Because the current situation at EOIR, the continuing indifference to injustice, and its damage to human lives and the law is totally unacceptable!
Also, what about the legal and judicial resources consumed on this and similar cases? Wouldn’t it be great if both the USG and the private sector could “redeploy” them to making the immigration justice system work, rather than correcting sophomoric, yet life threatening, errors? (Admittedly, describing the errors made by DOJ attorneys at all three levels here as “sophomoric” could be viewed as a slight to sophomores everywhere.)
Not only is EOIR’s “any reason to deny” system patently unjust, it’s a colossal waste of public resources! “Bureaucracy 101” — “Get it right at the initial level of the system.”
Of course the battle here hasn’t concluded. The remand gives EOIR yet another opportunity to screw up. Given EOIR’s current indifference to quality and fairness, I wouldn’t count on them to “get it right this time around” — even with Judge Ruiz basically providing them with the correct answer!
“The DOJ issues a hollow statement condemning FGM. But, when it comes to building on a 27-yr-old precedent to help gender-based refugees, they have been largely indifferent to suffering and the dire need for protection.” PHOTO: Creative Commons 4.0
Dan Kowalski from LexisNexis Immigration Community sent in this recent asylum victory from the Denver Immigration Court:
Hats off to Judge Burgie and Attorney Alexandra Katsiaficas for showing how effective advocacy and good judging can save lives and “move” cases at the “retail level” of EOIR.
This decision is comprehensive, straightforward, understandable, and logical. This is exactly the type of precedent that the BIA should be (but isn’t) issuing and enforcing on a consistent, nationwide basis! Why isn’t EOIR getting the job done under Garland?
While Judge Burgie didn’t cite Matter of A-R-C-G- on asylum based on domestic violence, she did cite a number of my “favorite precedents” from the long-gone but not totally forgotten “Schmidt-Board:” Matter of Kasinga, Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, Matter of D-V-, and Matter of S-P-, as well as the BIA’s oft-cited but seldom followed “seminal” asylum case Matter of Acosta, which was the starting point for Kasinga and other favorable asylum precedents of the past.
Judge Burgie also cited and followed favorable 10th Circuit precedent. She got the “unwilling or unable to protect,” “internal relocation,” and “nexus” issues correct. She used the regulatory presumption based on past persecution effectively. Significantly, she also included a correct additional analysis of why this case, and others like it, should be granted based on “egregious past persecution” (“Chen grant”) even in the absence of a current well-founded-fear. Most of these cases should be “easy grants” preferably at the Asylum Office, but if not, at EOIR.
Instead, some IJs and many BIA panels “invent” reasons to deny that mock asylum law and distort the reality of conditions for women in the Northern Traingle and elsewhere!
I recently commented elsewhere on the irony of Garland’s DOJ issuing a “pro forma declaration” endorsing “Zero Tolerance for FGM Day,” while doing such a poor overall job of actually protecting those who have suffered that and other forms of gender based persecution. Action over hollow rhetoric, please!
Seems to me EOIR didn’t do a very good job of “building on the saving potential” of Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996), my “landmark” opinion finding that FGM could be a basis for granting asylum. Indeed, after the “Ashcroft purge” removed those of us BIA judges committed to protecting refugees suffering from gender based persecution, the BIA intentionally misconstrued Kasinga and shamefully tried to limit it.
So transparently horrible was this effort that one of Ashcroft’s Bush II successors, AG Mukasey, hardly a voice for progressive jurisprudence and women’s human rights, finally had to intervene to put a stop to the BIA’s deadly nonsense. See Matter of A-T-, 24 I&N Dec. 617 (A.G. 2008). This was only after after blistering criticism of the “post-purge” BIA’s disingenuous approach by some of Judge Mukasey’s “former Article III superiors” on the Second Circuit.SeeBah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 124 (2d Cir. 2008) (“The BIA refers, in passing, to the act of female genital mutilation as “reprehensible,” . . . but its entirely dismissive treatment of such claims in these cases belies any sentiment to that effect.” Straub, Circuit Judge concurring).
Judge Staub’s criticism of the BIA’s shallow and disingenuous treatment of too many asylum claims, particularly those based on gender persecution, remains just as true today under Garland as it was then. “Throwaway lines” — basically “boilerplate” —disingenuously expressing sympathy, but then misconstruing facts and law to deny life-saving protection, are no substitute for competent, fair judging at EOIR!
More than a quarter-century after Kasinga, I still don’t see much commitment at DOJ/EOIR to consistently protecting women from gender-based persecution. That being said, some IJs, particularly (but not only) those with expertise gained by representing asylum seekers, like Judge Burgie, are doing a good job of applying Cardoza, Kasinga, A-R-C-G-, D-V-, O-Z-&I-Z-, the regulatory presumption, expert testimony, and an honest reading of country conditions to grant desperately-needed protection in gender-based cases. The BIA, not so much.
Also, while issuing this statement, DOJ is “sitting on” gender based regulations, promised by President Biden on “day 1” to be delivered by the Fall of 2021! Reportedly, there is considerable “Miller Lite” restrictionist opposition within the Administration to treating protection claims for gender-based refugees fairly, generously, and consistently. See, e.g., https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-biden-asylum-limits-us-mexico-border-arrivals/.
Kind of makes me wonder what, if anything, Dems REALLY stand for when the chips are down, human lives are at stake, and courageous, informed, bold leadership is required! GOP White Nationalist nativist bullies are only too happy to express their disdain for the rights and contempt for the humanity of all vulnerable refugees. They specifically target women.
But, when it comes to standing up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers, most of them already written into our laws, Dems often “hide underneath the table.” That’s particularly true of this Administration’s incredibly poor and spineless approach to asylum at the Southern Border and their failure to address the asylum disaster at EOIR.
And, it’s not that Biden’s morally and legally vapid approach to asylum seekers has won any support from the right, progressives, or independents. Almost everyone is suing or threatening to sue the Administration about some aspect of their hapless, mushy, often self-contradictory handling of asylum. It’s a traditional, perhaps endemic, problem that once elected, Dems have a hard time distinguishing friends from foes. At least on immigration, they spend far too much time catering to the views and bogus criticisms of the latter while ignoring the informed views and experiences of the former.
Judge Burgie is a Barr appointee, but has a diverse background that includes not only service as an EOIR JLC and fraud and abuse prevention counsel, but also time representing and advocating for refugees and asylum seekers. Her asylum grant rate has gone up steadily over three years on the bench and currently stands at approximately 75%, well within the range I’d expect from a competent, expertIJ handling a non-detained docket.
That’s about 2X the national average grant rate of 37.5%. And, the latter is “up” from its artificially suppressed rate under Trump! Better EOIR judges at the “grass roots level” can make a difference and save lives even in the absence of leadership from Falls Church and “Main Justice!”
As this case confirms, there is “substantial judicial potential” on the the EOIR bench, most of it at the trial level. That’s particularly true of some of Garland’s most recent appointments who are widely-recognized and universally-respected asylum experts — “practical scholars” if you will.
But, EOIR still has not reached the “critical mass” of outstanding jurists necessary to “turn this broken system around” in the absence of leadership, positive examples, and operational reforms “from the top!”
That’s why I advocate for “change from below as the way to go” to save some lives and institutionalize fair judging and best practices at EOIR. So, NDPA heroes, keep those applications flowing forupcoming vacancies on the Immigration Bench, at all levels. I want YOU to bring justice to the broken “retail level” of our legal system! See, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/01/12/-i-want-you-to-be-a-u-s-immigration-judge/.
“This appeal arises from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of Karla Yadira Lara Canales’s motion to reopen her removal proceedings. The BIA denied her motion to reopen as untimely, leaving the order of removal in place. We now VACATE the BIA’s denial of Lara Canales’s motion to reopen and REMAND so that the BIA may properly consider whether Lara Canales is entitled to equitable tolling. … [E]ach of the BIA’s bases for determining that Lara Canales had not accrued the continuous physical presence required for eligibility of cancellation of removal was legal error. We now hold that Lara Canales is statutorily eligible to seek cancellation of removal. However, this holding does not automatically entitle Lara Canales to have her motion to reopen heard on the merits. The BIA must, upon remand, engage in the fact-intensive determination of whether the 90-day deadline on motions to reopen should be tolled because of the extraordinary circumstance presented by Pereira. If the BIA determines Lara Canales satisfies the requirements for equitable tolling, she may then present her motion for a determination on its merits. We therefore VACATE the BIA’s denial of Lara Canales’s motion to reopen and REMAND this case for further consideration not inconsistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off once again to superlitigator Raed Gonzalez!]
Thanks Raed for continuing to lead the fight for justice in “America’s worst ‘court’ system” in America’s most right-wing Circuit!
THIS “any reason to deny mentality” at EOIR, still being promoted by Garland’s BIA, combined with incredibly inept and unprofessional “administration” of EOIR by DOJ, is why the Immigration Court is broken and being crushed by unending backlogs, daily chaos, and a travesties of justice and sound government!
The Biden Administration pretends like the problem doesn’t exist and/or isn’t important enough to fix. But, I can assure you that they are WRONG! “Dead wrong” in some cases!
In addition to the public manifestations of dysfunction and unprofessionalism like this case, I get regular e-mails from NDPA members relating their own EOIR horror stories and venting their frustrations with the arrogant “above the fray/what me worry about humanity and those defending it” attitude of Garland and the rest of the Biden Administration responsible for the ongoing EOIR catastrophe!
I strongly doubt that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Prelogar, and the rest of the DOJ “clueless crew” responsible for this indelible blot on American justice would last 60 days if required to practice exclusively before EOIR under the unfathomably horrible, due-process-denying conditions they have promoted and enabled over their past two years of horrible legal “leadership!” As aptly stated by one practitioner who recently contacted me:
“Things in Immigration Court will never be the same, but I at least expected attention to due process. Nope, IJ’s are more interested in getting the cases done.”
How is this appropriate conduct from a Dem Administration that claims to value human lives, racial justice, and the rule of law, but whose actions at EOIR (and elsewhere in immigration and human rights) say the exact opposite? Poorly functioning as EOIR was when I retired in 2016, the “anecdotal consensus” from practitioners seems to be that it’s measurably worse now under Garland’s inept leadership! “Come on man,” this just isn’t right!
After all this time (17 years since the BIA’s supposedly “final” order), this case is still not complete! It’s back at the BIA for yet another chance for them to deny on specious, legally incorrect grounds. One possibility is to misapply the “equitable tolling” concept mentioned by the 5th Circuit. The BIA has a long, disgraceful record of resisting and mis-applying equitable tolling.
Or, perhaps they will attempt to invoke their recent precedent in Matter of Chen, 28 I&N Dec. 676 (BIA 2023) https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1561876/download to deny reopening for “failing to make out a prima facie case for relief on the merits.”
Chen is a case where the the respondent moved to reopen to apply for NLP cancellation having attained the required 10 years of physical presence by reason of the BIA’s two wrong-headed precedents overruled by the Supremes in Pereira v. Sessions and Niz-Chavez v. Garland. Having twice screwed up in a way that created tens of thousands of potential remands and reopenings, someone not familiar with the BIA might have expected them to set forth clear, practical, generous criteria that would encourage IJ’s to consistently reopen cases where the respondent now had the qualifying time and relative(s) in light of the problems caused by the BIA itself. After all, that’s basically the direction in the BIA’s long-standing precedent Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 413 (BIA 1996) (reopening where the record“indicate[s] a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, so as to make it worthwhile to develop the issues at a hearing”). https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjWzY36pdn8AhVgF1kFHTcxChEQFnoECBkQAQ&url=https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3281.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2Ntzlp4MuxfupmjaDIn7i6
Since “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is inherently a fact-bound issue requiring a hearing to develop those facts, one might expect most cases to be routinely reopened.
But, the BIA took a different tack in Chen. While acknowledging that the hardship asserted by the respondent fell within the zone of those “recognized” by the BIA, they found “she has not identified and documented heightened hardship beyond that which would normally be expected to occur in such circumstances.”
While the BIA claimed to be “following” Matter of L-O-G-, they actually appear to have violated the teaching of that case that: “In considering a motion to reopen, the Board should not prejudge the merits of a case before the [respondent] has had an opportunity to prove the case.”(21 I&N Dec. at 419). That should particularly be true when the BIA itself has had a major role in creating the situation where reopening is sought.
By providing only a negative precedent (they didn’t even botherto “bookend” this with a precedential example of a grantable motion) to a system already suffering from a “culture of denial,” the BIA aggravated an long-festering problem. One can expect many IJ’s to view Chen as an “invitation to deny” the many Pereira/Niz Chavez motions to reopen in the offing for specious reasons or indeed for “any reason at all.” I expect talented NDPA warriors like Raed to make mincemeat out of the BIA’s wrong-headed attempt to minimize the “Pereira-induced damage” they have generated.
Like most of the misguided efforts of the 21st Century BIA, this attempt to cut corners, summarily deny, and NOT provide full due process and real hearings is likely to take more time and waste more resources than simply giving respondents the fair merits hearings to which they are legally entitled in the first place.But, that’s exactly what this Dem Administration has wrought at EOIR. “More of the same, instead of the promised change!”
If these kids survive, what will they think about a rich nation that turned its back on the world’s most vulnerable in their hour of need? Creative Commons License
Originally published by LexisNexis Immigration Community on Oct. 18, 2016:
SAVING CHILD MIGRANTS WHILE SAVING OURSELVES
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
They cross deserts, rivers, and territories controlled by corrupt governments, violent gangs, and drug cartels. They pass through borders, foreign countries, different languages and dialects, and changing cultures.
I meet them on the final leg of their trip where we ride the elevator together. Wide-eyed toddlers in their best clothes, elementary school students with backpacks and shy smiles, worried parents or sponsors trying to look brave and confident. Sometimes I find them wandering the parking garage or looking confused in the sterile concourse. I tell them to follow me to the second floor, the home of the United States Immigration Court at Arlington, Virginia. “Don’t worry,” I say, “our court clerks and judges love children.”
Many will find justice in Arlington, particularly if they have a lawyer. Notwithstanding the expedited scheduling ordered by the Department of Justice, which controls the Immigration Courts, in Arlington the judges and staff reset cases as many times as necessary until lawyers are obtained. In my experience, retaining a pro bono lawyer in Immigration Court can be a lengthy process, taking at least six months under the best of circumstances. With legal aid organizations now overwhelmed, merely setting up intake screening interviews with needy individuals can take many months. Under such conditions, forcing already overworked court staff to drop everything to schedule initial court hearings for women and children within 90 days from the receipt of charging papers makes little, if any, sense.
Instead of scheduling the cases at a realistic rate that would promote representation at the initial hearing, the expedited scheduling forces otherwise avoidable resetting of cases until lawyers can be located, meet with their clients (often having to work through language and cultural barriers), and prepare their cases. While the judges in Arlington value representation over “haste makes waste” attempts to force unrepresented individuals through the system, not all Immigration Courts are like Arlington.
For example, according to the Transactional Records Clearinghouse at Syracuse University (“TRAC”), only 1% of represented juveniles and 11% of all juveniles in Arlington whose cases began in 2014, the height of the so-called “Southern Border Surge,” have received final orders of removal. By contrast, for the same group of juveniles in the Georgia Immigration Courts, 43% were ordered removed, and 52% of those were unrepresented.
Having a lawyer isn’t just important – it’s everything in Immigration Court. Generally, individuals who are represented by lawyers in their asylum cases succeed in remaining in the United States at an astounding rate of five times more than those who are unrepresented. For recently arrived women with children, the representation differential is simply off the charts: at least fourteen times higher for those who are represented, according to TRAC. Contrary to the well-publicized recent opinion of a supervisory Immigration Judge who does not preside over an active docket, most Immigration Judges who deal face-to-face with minor children agree that such children categorically are incompetent to represent themselves. Yet, indigent individuals, even children of tender years, have no right to an appointed lawyer in Immigration Court.
To date, most removal orders on the expedited docket are “in absentia,” meaning that the women and children were not actually present in court. In Immigration Court, hearing notices usually are served by regular U.S. Mail, rather than by certified mail or personal delivery. Given heavily overcrowded dockets and chronic understaffing, errors by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) in providing addresses and mistakes by the Immigration Court in mailing these notices are common.
Consequently, claims by the Department of Justice and the DHS that women and children with removal orders being rounded up for deportation have received full due process ring hollow. Indeed a recent analysis by the American Immigration Council using the Immigration Court’s own data shows that children who are represented appear in court more than 95% of the time while those who are not represented appear approximately 33% of the time. Thus, concentrating on insuring representation for vulnerable individuals, instead of expediting their cases, would largely eliminate in absentia orders while promoting real, as opposed to cosmetic, due process. Moreover, as recently pointed out by an article in the New York Times, neither the DHS nor the Department of Justice can provide a rational explanation of why otherwise identically situated individuals have their cases “prioritized” or “deprioritized.”
Rather than working with overloaded charitable organizations and exhausted pro bono attorneys to schedule initial hearings at a reasonable pace, the Department of Justice orders that initial hearings in these cases be expedited. Then it spends countless hours and squanders taxpayer dollars in Federal Court defending its “right” to aggressively pursue removal of vulnerable unrepresented children to perhaps the most dangerous, corrupt, and lawless countries outside the Middle East: El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), the institution responsible for enforcing fairness and due process for all who come before our Immigration Courts, could issue precedent decisions to stop this legal travesty of accelerated priority scheduling for unrepresented children who need pro bono lawyers to proceed and succeed. But, it has failed to act.
The misguided prioritization of cases of recently arrived women, children, and families further compromises due process for others seeking justice in our Immigration Courts. Cases that have been awaiting final hearings for years are “orbited” to slots in the next decade. Families often are spread over several dockets, causing confusion and generating unnecessary paperwork. Unaccompanied
2
children whose cases should initially be processed in a non-adversarial system are instead immediately thrust into court.
Euphemistically named “residential centers” — actually jails — wear down and discourage those, particularly women and children, seeking to exercise their rights under U.S. and international law to seek refuge from death and torture. Regardless of the arcane nuances of our asylum laws, most of the recent arrivals need and deserve protection from potential death, torture, rape, or other abuse at the hands of gangs, drug cartels, and corrupt government officials resulting from the breakdown of civil society in their home countries.
Not surprisingly, these “deterrent policies” have failed. Individuals fleeing so-called “Northern Triangle” countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have continued to arrive at a steady pace, while dockets in Immigration Court, including “priority cases,” have mushroomed, reaching an astonishing 500,000 plus according to recent TRAC reports (notwithstanding efforts to hire additional Immigration Judges). As reported recently by the Washington Post, private detention companies, operating under highly questionable government contracts, appear to be the only real beneficiaries of the current policies.
It doesn’t have to be this way. We could save lives and short-circuit both the inconsistencies and expenses of the current case-by-case protection system, while allowing a “return to normalcy” for most already overcrowded Immigration Court dockets by using statutory Temporary Protected Status (known as “TPS”) for natives of the Northern Triangle countries. Indeed, more than 270 organizations with broad based expertise in immigration matters, as well as many members of Congress, have requested that the Administration institute such a program.
The casualty toll from the uncontrolled armed violence plaguing the Northern Triangle trails only those from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. TPS is a well- established humanitarian response to a country in crisis. Its recipients, after registration, are permitted to live and work here, but without any specific avenue for obtaining permanent residency or achieving citizenship. TPS has been extended among others to citizens of Syria and remains in effect for citizens of both Honduras who needed refuge from Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and El Salvador who needed refuge following earthquakes in 2001. Certainly, the disruption caused by a hurricane and earthquakes more than a decade ago pales in comparison with the very real and gruesome reality of rampant violence today in the Northern Triangle.
Regardless, we desperately need due-process reforms to allow the Immigration Court system to operate more fairly, efficiently, and effectively. Here are a few suggestions: place control of dockets in the local Immigration Judges, rather than bureaucrats in Washington, as is the case with most other court systems; work cooperatively with the private sector and the Government counsel to docket cases at a rate designed to maximize representation at the initial hearings; process unaccompanied children through the non-adversarial system before rather
3
than after the institution of Immigration Court proceedings; end harmful and unnecessary detention of vulnerable families; settle ongoing litigation and redirect the talent and resources to developing an effective representation program for all vulnerable individuals; and make the BIA an effective appellate court that insures due process, fairness, uniformity and protection for all who come before our Immigration Courts.
Children are the future of our world. History deals harshly with societies that mistreat and fail to protect children and other vulnerable individuals. Sadly, our great country is betraying its values in its rush to “stem the tide.” It is time to demand an immigrant justice system that lives up to its vision of “guaranteeing due process and fairness for all.” Anything less is a continuing disgrace that will haunt us forever.
The children and families riding the elevator with me are willing to put their hopes and trust in the belief that they will be treated with justice, fairness, and decency by our country. The sole mission and promise of our Immigration Courts is due process for these vulnerable individuals. We are not delivering on that promise.
The author is a recently retired U.S. Immigration Judge who served at the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington Virginia, and previously was Chairman and Member of the Board of Immigration Appeals. He also has served as Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, a partner at two major law firms, and an adjunct professor at two law schools. His career in the field of immigration and refugee law spans 43 years. He has been a member of the Senior Executive Service in Administrations of both parties.
4
*************************
Recently, NDPA stars have achieved important senior positions in the Congress, the judiciary, and the immigration bureaucracy. We will need many, many more in such positions to finally turn around the limping ship of state on human rights, immigration, racial justice, smart economics, and values-based practical leadership! In the end, it’s going to be up to the “newer generations” to overcome the mistakes of my generation and create a better America and a better world — one in which individual rights and human dignity are respected and everyone can achieve their fullest potential.
Here’s a New Year’s greeting from New York courtesy of Round Table leader, talented photographer, and proud new granddad, Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
“Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell showed last week that he’s thinking about how recent lower immigration has factored into the ongoing U.S. labor shortage, but he said it’s not appropriate for the Fed to call for increased legal immigration to help alleviate the shortage. Could his remarks, careful as they were, somehow move the needle on immigration policy? His comments came as one new bipartisan proposal for immigration reform flopped in Congress, and some analysts say they aren’t optimistic about progress on immigration next year in a divided Washington. Still, others see Powell’s remarks having a small effect. … Powell’s answer could be seen as part of a slow process that eventually results in long-awaited fixes to the U.S. immigration system, according to Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School. “To me, it’s like water dripping on a rock,” Yale-Loehr told MarketWatch in an interview. “A single drop of water, whether it’s from Fed Chairman Powell or somebody else, won’t make a difference by itself. But if enough drips of water from other people and other studies consistently show that immigration can help our labor shortages and improve our economy, then I hope that will move the needle so that Congress will seriously take up immigration reform in 2023.” … The Cornell professor also suggested that grassroots efforts eventually might end up spurring U.S. lawmakers to do more. “A lot of change happens from the ground up, rather than the top down — if you think about civil-rights legislation in the 60s, the Environmental Protection Act of 1970, the antiwar efforts,” he said. “It was because people really protested the existing framework that they forced Congress to make changes in those areas. And so too, I think that if more Americans stood up and said, ‘We need immigration reform,’ I think that that would help persuade Congress to actually put pen to paper and make some significant changes.””
What better place to start forcing some long overdue changes than by getting more NDPA “practical scholar/experts” onto the EOIR bench where lives are on the line every minute of every working day? There are lots of ways to do justice at the “retail level” despite, or perhaps because of, the indifference of those in charge!
Folks, approximately a decade ago, the asylum grant rate at EOIR exceeded 50%! When grants of withholding (many the result of the 1-year-bar on asylum) and CAT were added in, almost 2/3 of asylum applicants who got a merits determination received some form of legal protection!
The vast majority of these cases were not appealed to the BIA. Slowly, but steadily, the EOIR system “at the retail level” was committing to expertise, sound scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, faithful application of the generous legal principles established in Cardoza, Mogharrabi, and the regulatory presumption of future future persecution based on past persecution.
For years, those precedents and that regulation were resisted by many EOIR judges who continued, in practice, to apply the higher “more likely than not” standard rejected in Cardoza. But, following a series of savagely critical reversals of EOIR asylum denials by the Courts of Appeals the ground started to shift toward a more generous, proper, and correct interpretation of asylum law. Notably, those Court of Appeals “roastings” came after AG John Ashcroft “purged” the BIA in 2003 of appellate judges who spoke out for a better legal interpretation of asylum laws — one that faithfully followed Cardoza, Mogharrabi, and international standards!
As I used to tell my Georgetown Law students, a quarter century after the Supremes’ landmark decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, establishing the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum (reasonable likelihood = 10% chance) and the BIA’s implementation of that standard in Matter of Mogharrabi (asylum can be granted even where it is significantly unlikely that persecution will occur) the more generous standard was actually achieving “traction” at EOIR!
The law hasn’t changed very much since 2012. But, the progress toward a “Cardoza/Mogharrabi compliant” interpretation and application of asylum law halted and regressed substantially during the last part of the Obama Administration and during the Trump era.
What did change, for the worse, was the attitude of politicos, who have seen the Immigration Courts as captive “tools” to deter asylum seekers and “send negative messages” rather than insuring that they function as due-process-oriented, independent, subject matter expert, courts of law. The qualifications of those selected as Immigration Judges were “watered down” to favor high-volume government prosecutorial experience over demonstrated expertise in immigration and asylum laws and “hands on” experience representing individuals before EOIR.
Not surprisingly, asylum grant rates dropped precipitously during the Trump years. Although they have rebounded some under Biden, they still remain below the 2012 levels. It’s certainly not that conditions have substantially “improved” in major “sending countries.” If anything, conditions are worse in most of those countries than in the years preceding 2012.
So, if the law hasn’t changed substantially and conditions haven’t improved, what has caused regression in asylum grant rates at EOIR? It comes down to poor judging, accompanied by inadequate training, too much emphasis on “churning the numbers over quality and correctness,” and a BIA that really doesn’t believe much in asylum law and lacks the expertise and commitment to consistently set and apply favorable precedents and end disgraceful inconsistencies and “asylum free zones” that continue to exist.
Some of the most disgraceful, intentional asylum misinterpretations by Sessions and Barr now have been reversed by Garland. Unfortunately, he failed to follow-up to insure that the correct standards are actually applied, particularly to recurring circumstances. It’s one of many reasons that the Biden Administration struggles to re-establish a fair and efficient legal asylum system at the Southern Border — notwithstanding having two years to address the problems!
But, it doesn’t have to be this way! Recently, a number of notable “practical scholar experts” have been appointed to the Immigration Judiciary. When such well-qualified jurists reach a “critical mass” in the expanding EOIR, systemic changes and improvements in practices and results will happen.
The “dialogue” among Immigration Judges from government backgrounds and those from the private/NGO sector will improve. Lives will be saved. Life-threatening inconsistencies and wasteful litigation to correct basic mistakes at all levels of EOIR will diminish. The EOIR system will resume movement toward the former noble, but now long abandoned, vision of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
So, warriors ⚔️🛡of the NDPA, make those applications for EOIR judgeships! Storm the tower from below! Make a difference in the lives of others and help save our democracy! If not YOU, then who?👩🏻⚖️👨🏽⚖️⚖️🗽🇺🇸
“Oscar Aguado-Cuevas, a Mexican national, petitions for review of the BIA’s decision affirming a denial of his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons below, we GRANT the petition, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND this case for further consideration of Aguado-Cuevas’s petition for CAT protection. … Aguado-Cuevas filed an application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), arguing that his uncles and cousins in Mexico were cartel members who would kill him if he returned. In September 2020, Aguado-Cuevas, his father, and an expert witness testified in support of Aguado-Cuevas’s CAT application. … Aguado-Cuevas signed a cooperation agreement and began cooperating with federal authorities. Aguado-Cuevas’s cooperation, including his agreement to testify against Adolfo Jr. and CJNG, was leaked to the media and publicized online. … [A]n expert witness testified that Aguado-Cuevas’s chances of potential risk or torture upon returning to Mexico were “[e]xtremely high to [a] near certainty” due to his informant and debtor status. … [T]he BIA erred by not applying the correct legal framework in which it must show that it meaningfully considered “relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s claims.” … Although we remand primarily for the BIA to reconsider the state involvement prong of the CAT analysis, we note that both parties acknowledge that the BIA’s likelihood of torture analysis suffers from similar deficiencies. Accordingly, to the extent that the BIA finds that Aguado-Cuevas has shown the requisite level of state involvement upon remand, we order the BIA to also consider the likelihood of torture prong under the proper legal framework. … Aguado-Cuevas claims that he will be murdered by CJNG as punishment for being an informant and debtor following his drug-related activities in the U.S. Concerning the likelihood of torture, Aguado-Cuevas argues—and the Government agrees—that the BIA should have more closely considered evidence of Aguado-Cuevas’s actions in the U.S. that could characterize him to CJNG as an informant and debtor. Specifically, the BIA did not properly consider evidence that (1) Aguado-Cuevas owed CJNG $120,000 after his botched deal; (2) Aguado-Cuevas was identified by the media as an informant in the prosecution of a CJNG member; (3) a text message identified Aguado-Cuevas as a potential target of the CJNG; (4) a residence where Aguado-Cuevas stayed was ransacked; and (5) CJNG routinely kills debtors and informants. Such evidence goes directly to Aguado-Cuevas’s arguments of likelihood of torture as an informant and debtor; such a theory hinges not on events in Mexico but on his actions in the U.S., making him a particular target for torture by CJNG. The BIA failed to properly consider these pieces of evidence. … The complete lack of discussion of the aforementioned evidence suggests that the BIA has not met this standard. As before, the BIA should remand to the IJ for additional factfinding if necessary.”
Many congrats and thanks Carla! There is an”epidemic” of botched CAT cases being “outed” by the Circuits. This one was so horribly mishandled, that even OIL couldn’t defend it!
Yet, the “downbeat goes on” as Garland feigns ignorance of the institutionalized injustice @ EOIR being carried out in his name! On his watch, the BIA has gone from “any reason to deny” to “no reason whatsoever for denying.”
Apparently, as long as the BIA staff attorney drafts the decision so the individual loses, it really doesn’t matter to the “signatory appellate judge” at the BIA what goes above the “bottom line.”
It’s a heck of a way to “run the railroad” 🚂 with human lives at stake and an ever growing, out of control, 2 million case backlog! After 2.5 years bouncing around the EOIR system, this particular case is headed back to the IJ in a never ending quest for competent judging, due process, and fundamental fairness. All three of the foregoing are elusive qualities at Garland’s EOIR!
Garland’sso-called “dedicated dockets” gimmick has been a total failure from a due process and fundamental fairness standpoint. See, e.g.,https://trac.syr.edu/reports/704.
The only “dedicated docket” that Garland REALLY needs at EOIR is one dedicated to getting the results right in the first instance! But, that readily achievable objective (althoughNOT without major, long over due personnel changes in “management,” the BIA, and among some IJs) appears of little interest to Garland or the Biden Administration. Thus, the latest Dem Administration appears content to let the dysfunctional EOIR system limp on spewing injustice, bad law, and insurmountable backlogs on its downward spiral!
“Karla Iveth Garcia-Aranda petitions for review of two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Garcia-Aranda, a native and citizen of Honduras, testified before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that she and her family had been threatened, kidnapped, and beaten by members of the Mara 18 gang while a local Honduran police officer was present. Garcia-Aranda sought asylum and withholding of removal, arguing that the gang had persecuted her because she was a member of the Valerio family, which ran its own drug trafficking ring in Garcia-Aranda’s hometown. She also sought protection under CAT based on an asserted likelihood of future torture at the hands of the gang with the participation or acquiescence of the local Honduran police. Having reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions, we hold that the agency did not err in finding that Garcia-Aranda failed to satisfy her burden of proof for asylum and withholding of removal, but that the agency applied incorrect standards when adjudicating Garcia-Aranda’s CAT claim. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART, the decisions of the BIA are VACATED IN PART to the extent they denied Garcia-Aranda’s claim for CAT protection, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision. … Because of these legal errors, we grant the petition as to Garcia-Aranda’s claim for protection under CAT and vacate the BIA’s decisions regarding CAT protection. See Rafiq v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 165, 166–67 (2d Cir. 2006) (remanding a CAT claim for proper application of Khouzam). On remand, we direct the agency to consider, in light of all testimony and documentary evidence, whether Garcia-Aranda will more likely than not be tortured by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, any public official (or other person) acting under color of law. As more fully described above, that means considering questions such as whether it is more likely than not that the gang will torture Garcia-Aranda, including meeting all the harm requirements for torture under section 1208.18(a), and whether it is more likely than not that local police acting under color of law will themselves participate in those likely gang actions or acquiesce in those likely gang actions. The BIA is also instructed to remand to the IJ for any additional factfinding that is necessary for the BIA to make its determination.”
[NOTE: This PFR was filed in 2018! Hats off to Heather Axford and team!]
Heather Axford Senior Staff Attorney Central American Legal Assistance Brooklyn, NY
“Petition for review of a December 26, 2018 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) vacating a July 27, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting Petitioners’ application for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Accordingly, the decision of the BIA is VACATED in part, and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this summary order. … Remand is required in this case because the BIA did not give consideration to all relevant evidence and principles of law, as those have been detailed by this Court’s recent decision in Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316, 332–36 (2d Cir. 2020). … Because Mejia did not fear torture at the hands of the Guatemalan authorities, the relevant inquiry is whether government officials have acquiesced in likely third-party torture. To make this determination, the Court considers whether there is evidence that authorities knew of the torture or turned a blind eye to it, and “thereafter” breached their “responsibility to prevent” the possible torture. Scarlett, 957 F.3d at 334 (quoting Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 171 (2d Cir. 2004)); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7). … Here, record evidence raises questions as to the Guatemalan government’s inability to protect Mejia, insofar as it indicates that Mejia sought assistance from Guatemalan police and was told that they could not protect her and she should simply hide in her home. … Insofar as the BIA ruled without the benefit of Scarlett, a remand is warranted before this Court conducts any review. We therefore remand for the sole purpose of allowing the BIA to decide, after reasoned consideration of the record, whether the Guatemalan police’s inability to protect Mejia constituted acquiescence.”
Mikhail Usher, Esq. Senior Partner The Usher Law Group PLLC My & New Jersey PHOTO: Usher Law Group
********************
Congrats to NDPA superstars Heather and Mike!
Here’s commentary from my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase on Heather’s performance on Garcia-Aranda v. Garland:
“Heather is a remarkable litigator who did a remarkable job on this case – it was a tough panel that had basically ruled out asylum from the start; it was most impressive to hear Heather persuade the judges over the course of oral arguments as to the CAT standard (during which one of the judges repeatedly referenced proposed Trump regs that had never taken effect, but were nevertheless listed on the government’s eCFR as if it had).
Best, Jeff“
And, here’s my response:
“Heather is truly an NDPA superstar. And, I’m proud that she got her start appearing at the Arlington Immigration Court!
