"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.
“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!
“Dulce Zaragoza, a native and citizen of Mexico and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty to the Indiana offense of criminal neglect of a dependent after locking her six-year-old son in a closet for six hours. She was sentenced to one year in jail suspended to time served plus 30 days, with the remainder of the sentence to be served on probation. After completing her sentence, she traveled abroad and presented herself for admission when she returned. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) found her inadmissible based on the neglect conviction, which the agency classified as a “crime involving moral turpitude.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). She was placed in removal proceedings. Zaragoza fought removal on several grounds, with her arguments expanding as the proceedings progressed. Before the immigration judge, she argued that the Indiana neglect offense does not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude. The judge disagreed and entered a removal order, and Zaragoza appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “the Board”). In the meantime, she petitioned the state court to modify her sentence. Her purpose was to bring herself within the so-called “petty offense” exception to inadmissibility, which is available to first-time offenders sentenced to six months or less. Id. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II). The state court obliged and reduced her one-year sentence to 179 days. With that order in hand, Zaragoza argued before the BIA that Indiana’s neglect offense is not a crime involving moral turpitude, and regardless, the petty-offense exception applies. The BIA rejected both arguments, agreeing with the immigration judge that the Indiana offense is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, and further holding that the sentence-modification order was not effective to establish Zaragoza’s eligibility for the petty-offense exception. For the latter conclusion, the Board relied on a recent decision of the Attorney General declaring that state-court sentence modification orders are effective for immigration purposes only if based on a legal defect in the underlying criminal proceeding. Matter of Thomas & Thompson (“Thomas”), 27 I. & N. Dec. 674, 690 (Att’y Gen. 2019). Zaragoza sought reconsideration, this time adding two more arguments: (1) the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) the Attorney General’s decision in Thomas is impermissibly retroactive as applied to her. The BIA disagreed on both counts. Zaragoza petitioned for review in this court, reprising the entire array of arguments she presented to the Board. We agree with the BIA’s resolution of all issues but one: applying Thomas in Zaragoza’s case is an impermissibly retroactive application of a new rule. We therefore remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
***********************
Commentary from Kevin A. Gregg, ESQ:
Kevin A. Gregg
• 1st
Partner at Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli & Pratt P.A. & Host of Immigration Review Podcast
2d • Edited •
2 days ago
Crimmigration attorneys, get your motions ready.
At least in Chicago! Matter of Thomas and Thompson CANNOT be applied retroactively in the Seventh Circuit!
Sentence modifications/clarifications/European vacations obtained pre-T&T and that comply with Matter of Cota Vargas/Song/Estrada must be recognized for immigration purposes!
Also, when will A.G. Garland weigh in on Matter of Thomas and Thompson? The time is now.
*******************
When the BIA starts not with the correct legal concept that retroactivity is disfavored in the law, but rather with “how can we best help DHS Enforcement and/or curry favor and job security from our political ‘handlers’ at DOJ,” “bad things are going to happen.” And, they do, over and over!
There are plenty of well-qualified “practical scholars” out here who understand retroactivity in the immigration context and would get these basic questions right in the first instance without bothering the Courts of Appeals or generating disorder, inconsistency, and unnecessary backlog! Why hasn’t Garland recruited them to be the “New and Improved BIA” that would actually be driven by legal expertise, practical scholarship, due process, and fundamental fairness? The latter are qualities that EOIR and DOJ claims it seeks in Immigration Judges. But, it’s not the reality that practitioners too often actually face in todays dysfunctional, inefficient, and hopelessly backlogged EOIR.
The public and those subject to substandard judging and often dehumanizing treatment by EOIR are suffering — amazingly, now more than ever! When will Garland do his job and reform his courts to conform to due process, fundamental fairness, best interpretations of law, and best practices?
The latter desirable qualities, actually necessary for any legitimate judiciary, are certainly NOT descriptive of today’s broken EOIR! Garland and his lieutenants might consider themselves “above the fray!”
But, my already over-stuffed e-mailbox is “lighting up” with EOIR horror stories from experienced, long-time practitioners who are questioning whether they can continue practicing in the hostile, lawless, “no due process,” “no customer service,” “no common sense,” “blame the victim” environment that Garland has allowed to mushroom, and sometimes even encouraged, at EOIR.
I mentioned the term “Dedicated Docket” at an Executive Session of a major NGO recently. The anger and disgust that it provoked from those actually “doing the job” of fighting for justice in Garland’s broken system was palpable!
Why is a Democratic Administration that is, despite beating expectations in the midterms, still hanging on by a thread, inflicting this type of disrespect, pain, and suffering on its own loyal supporters? How will this self-created legal, Constitutional, human rights disaster play out moving toward 2024!
“The EOIR HQ Tower” needs a complete shake-up and replacement ofthose who have demonstrated their inability to get the job done with those who can! The latter are out here. But, the worse Garland lets his system get, the harder and most costly (dollars and lives) it will be to fix it!
If he survives Garland’s EOIR, this guy faces more torture if wrongfully removed to torture elsewhere. “Justice” Star Chamber Style
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports on H.H. v. Garland, a case in which the RoundTable filed an amicus brief in behalf of the respondent. Many thanks to our friends Adam Gershenson, Zachary Sisko, Marc Suskin, Valeria M. Pelet del Toro, Samantha Kirby, and Cooley LLP on the brief for amici curiae Former Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
For the reasons detailed above, we conclude that the BIA erred by: (1) applying the incorrect standard of review to uphold the IJ’s denial of CAT relief as to Honduras, in a misguided effort to accommodate the IJ’s error of law in requiring a showing of willful acceptance rather than willful blindness; (2) improperly failing to address H.H.’s argument that he would likely be tortured by or at the instigation of Honduran officials; and (3) failing to meaningfully address H.H.’s argument that MS-13 members may act under color of law.21 Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision insofar as it denied H.H. deferral of removal to Honduras, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
************************************
Meanwhile, Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigraton Community reports on another CAT rebuke from the 9th Circuit.
“Risvin Valdemar De Leon Lopez (“De Leon”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture. We conclude: (1) the record in this case compels the conclusion that two of De Leon’s attackers were police officers during a July 2011 incident; (2) De Leon showed acquiescence on the part of the Guatemalan government with respect to that incident because government officials— namely, the two police officers—directly participated in the incident; and (3) the record indicates that the IJ and BIA’s conclusion that De Leon is not likely to be subjected to torture with government acquiescence if returned to Guatemala disregards several important circumstances pertinent to evaluating the likelihood of future torture. In light of these errors, we grant the petition and remand for the agency to reconsider De Leon’s application for relief.”
These aren’t “minor bureaucratic matters,” no matter how much Garland and his “clueless crew” over @ DOJ might want to treat them that way and hope they will go away! They won’t! Not if the thousands of us involved in the due process, fundamental fairness, and racial justice for all movement have anything to say about it (e.g., the “NDPA”)!
And we will continue to speak out against the parody of justice @ Garland’s EOIR! It’s a disingenuous and disgraceful performance by a Democratic Administration that will have “down the line” consequences!
While the Trump Administration admittedly left EOIR in complete shambles, that doesn’t excuse the Biden Administration’s failure to fix it. It’s not “rocket science!”But, there is no way that the “Clown Show” 🤡 that Garland has chosen to run and staff EOIR (many inexplicably “held over” from the Sessions/Barr debacle) can fix it!
These are literally life and death cases in which Garland’s “faux expert” BIA “pretzels” the law, misconstrues facts, and “selectively reads” records to reach wrong results that deny protection and decree deportation! How is this acceptable performance from any tribunal, let alone one that is supposed to insure justice for those whose lives are on the line? How is this acceptable performance from a Democratic Administration that claimed fealty to human rights and racial justice, but takes neither seriously when it comes to EOIR?
There are plenty of “practical scholar experts” out here in the non-governmental sectors who would make much better appellate and trial judges, and administrators, than many of those Garland is inflicting on migrants and their attorneys.
What’s wrong with the Biden Administration? What’s “right”about failed justice @ Justice?”
The poor performance of Garland as the “steward” of the Immigration Courts at EOIR is a threat to humanity, democracy, and a colossal waste of judicial and litigation resources at all levels of our justice system!
Maybe Merrick Garland SHOULD worry about running “America’s worst courts” and inflicting life-threatening injustice on his fellow humans! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
“King, a native and citizen of Jamaica, arrived in the United States in August 2016 pursuant to a visa, which later expired. He pleaded guilty in January 2020 to third-degree felony fleeing or eluding a police officer in violation of 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3733(a). The Government initiated removal proceedings and charged King as removable for having overstayed his visa and for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) within five years of entering the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(A)(i). King later married a United States citizen and has applied to adjust to the status of lawful permanent resident. … The BIA … conclud[ed] that a Pennsylvania felony fleeing conviction is categorically a CIMT because it involves a culpable mental state of willfulness and applies to reprehensible conduct. … The plain language of the statute, coupled with the reasoning of Mahn and Ramirez-Contreras, persuades us that the Pennsylvania felony fleeing statute does not qualify as turpitudinous. While the failing to stop for a police officer while crossing a state line is conduct that may put another in danger, it does not necessarily do so. The agency therefore erred in its conclusion that King was convicted of a CIMT. For the foregoing reasons, we will grant the petition for review.”
[Hats off to William C. Menard! And personally, I think this case should be published, because it highlights errors made by the IJ, the BIA and OIL.]
William C. Menard, Esquire Member Norris McLaughlin PHOTO: Firm
It’s always helpful to have superstars 🌟 like William C. Menard of Norris McLaughlin on the side of the NDPA. Too bad they and other top flight lawyers “out here” who know and understand the plight of migrants and its inextricable ties to racial justice in America aren’t “running the show” at the DOJ like they should be! The American legal system would function much better if due process and best practices for migrants were a part of it (that is, “institutionalized”), rather than something that has to be achieved case-by-case at a great cost in resources and inconsistent justice!
I concur with my friend Dan that this case should be published as yet another public reminder and “citable” permanent record of the seemingly unending stream of errors, misguided arguments, and “worst practices” streaming out of Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR and OIL!
A Dem Administration inexplicably continues to subject migrants and their representatives to “4th class justice” from Garland’s broken EOIR. Ironically, at the same time, the Administration is begging advocates and NGOs to “empty their pockets and pound the streets” in behalf of their candidates. Talk about “being taken for granted!”
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesDan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“The need for effective assistance of counsel applies in immigration law just as it does in criminal law. Aliens, many of whom do not speak English and some of whom are detained before their immigration hearings, can be particularly susceptible to the consequences of ineffective lawyers. Petitioner Arckange Saint Ford paid a lawyer to represent him in removal proceedings, but Saint Ford’s requests for relief from deportation were denied after the lawyer failed to present important and easily available evidence going to the heart of Saint Ford’s claims. Saint Ford retained new counsel, and his new lawyer asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen his case because of his former attorney’s ineffective assistance. The Board declined to do so. Because Saint Ford presents a meritorious ineffective-assistance claim, we will vacate the Board’s decision and remand. … AMBRO, Circuit Judge, concurring Arckange Saint Ford will get a second shot at seeking withholding of removal—that’s what matters. The majority is remanding because of his former counsel’s deficient performance at Saint Ford’s removal hearing. I agree with that and concur in full. But former counsel was not the only one who made significant missteps at the hearing. The Immigration Judge did as well. I therefore would have granted Saint Ford’s initial petition for review and remanded on that basis. I write separately to explain these errors in the hope that similar ones will not be made at Saint Ford’s new hearing. [Emphasis added.]”
“The opinion and judgment filed on May 16, 2022 [34 F.4th 201 (3d Cir. 2022)] are hereby vacated. The Clerk is directed to file the amended opinion and re-enter the judgment contemporaneously with this order.” – Saint Ford v. Atty. Gen.
“Singh argues the BIA committed legal error in denying his motion to reopen because it failed to cite or apply the prejudice standard from Matter of Lozada and its progeny—i.e., that the alien “show a reasonable likelihood that the outcome would have been different,” Molina, 763 F.3d at 1263 (internal quotation marks omitted)— and instead applied an elevated standard of prejudice from Matter of F-S-N-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 1, 3 (B.I.A. 2020)—i.e., that the alien “overcome” a prior adverse credibility determination. We agree. … The BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in deciding whether Singh had been prejudiced by his attorney’s alleged ineffective assistance because it required him to “overcome” the adverse credibility determination to show prejudice. The BIA therefore abused its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen. See Qiu, 870 F.3d at 1202 (“[C]ommitting a legal error . . . is necessarily an abuse of discretion.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). On remand, the BIA should consider whether there is “a reasonable likelihood that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s deficient performance.” Mena-Flores, 776 F.3d at 1169 (internal quotation marks omitted).”
Wrong legal standards, mistakes at both trial and appellate levels, sloppy work, unfair results in “life or death” cases. Why is this “acceptable quasi-judicial performance” in the Biden Administration? Why isn’t Garland being held accountable for his life-threatening, ongoing, anti-due-process “clown show” @ EOIR?🤡☠️
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR! Public Realm
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)Raed Gonzalez ESQUIRE Chairman, Gonzalez Olivieri LLP Houston, TX PHOTO: best lawyers.com
From Dan:
Another CA5 Pereira / Niz-Chavez Remand: Parada v. Garland (unpub.)
“[T]he BIA’s decision to deny Parada’s motion to reopen was based on a legally erroneous interpretation of the statutes governing Notices to Appear and the stop-time rule. The Supreme Court has since reinforced the holding of Pereira and held—again— that to trigger the stop-time rule, a Notice to Appear must come in the form of “a single document containing all the information an individual needs to know about his removal hearing.” Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1478, 1486 (2021). That did not occur in this case, as the Notices to Appear served on Parada and her daughter did not contain the time or date for their removal proceedings. Thus, because “[a] putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ and so does not trigger the stop-time rule,” Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A)), the deficient Notices to Appear received by the Paradas did not stop the clock for the Paradas. … [O]ne of two keys must fit before the stop-time rule can be unlocked: service of a valid Notice to Appear or commission of an enumerated offense. The latter has not occurred here as no one has asserted that either of the Paradas has committed such an offense. And we have already concluded that the former has not occurred because the Notices to Appear served on the Paradas lacked the time and date of their hearing. Thus, the stop-time-rule box remained locked, the Paradas’ clock never stopped, and they accrued the necessary 10 years to satisfy the physical-presence requirement for cancellation of removal. In so concluding, we agree with the Ninth Circuit [emphasis added] which also held that “[b]y its terms . . . the stop-time rule applies to only the two circumstances set out in the statute, and a final order of removal satisfies neither.” Quebrado Cantor, 17 F.4th at 871. … To return to the analogy above, when Congress provided the two exceptions to the physical-presence requirement, it created all the keys that would fit. It did not additionally create a skeleton key that could fit when convenient. To conclude otherwise “would turn this principle on its head, using the existence of two exceptions to authorize a third very specific exception.” Quebrado Cantor, 17 F.4th at 874. Instead, “the ‘proper inference’ is that Congress considered which events ought to ‘stop the clock’ on a nonpermanent resident’s period of continuous physical presence and settled, in its legislative judgment, on only two.” Id. (quoting Johnson, 529 U.S. at 58). Lacking either here, the BIA committed a legal error in concluding otherwise and finding that the Paradas did not satisfy the physical-presence requirement to be eligible for cancellation of removal. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent pay to petitioners the costs on appeal [emphasis added] to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court.”
[Yet another victory for Superlitigator Raed Gonzalez! Who else could persuade CA5 to agree with CA9, and get an award of costs?]
Due Process Superheroes like Houston’s Raed Gonzalez are standing up for the rights of EVERYONE in America! PHOTO: Creative Commons
Kudos to Raed for “taking it to” America’s worst “courts” in America’s most “immigrant-unfriendly” Circuit!
Tons of “rotten tomatoes” to Garland for his horrible mismanagement of EOIR, OIL, and the legal aspects of immigration policy at DOJ!
Rotten Tomatoes Garland & his lieutenants deserve appropriate recognition for failing to bring long-overdue reforms to America’s most dysfunctional “parody of a court system” — EOIR! PHOTO: Creative Commmons
Immigration expert Professor Richard Boswell of UC Hastings College of Law asks: “Can someone explain why the government has been so obstinate on these cases?I like the fee award but I doubt that it has much impact on their behavior.”
Professor Richard Boswell UC Hastings Law PHOTO: LinkedIn Professor Boswell asks the right question. So far, “Team Garland” has no answers!
I wish I knew, my friend, I wish I knew! There is no rational excuse for Garland’s abject failure to: put EOIR and OIL under progressive expert leadership committed to human rights and due process; replace the many weak “Trump holdover appointees” at the BIA with expert real, professionally competent judges; weed out more of the “deadwood” on the immigration bench; bring in qualified experts as EOIR Judges who could potentially create an existential improvement in the composition, performance, and procedures of the entire Federal Judiciary that would go even beyond the essential task of saving the lives of migrants; and finally make Constitutional Due Process and equal justice for all real at the “retail level” of our American Justice system!
If our democracy fails — certainly an unhappy possibility at this point in time — future historians will undoubtedly dissect the major responsibility stemming from Garland’s inexplicably weak, disconnected, and inept performance in ignoring the dangerous dysfunction in our Immigration Courts and Immigration Judiciary.
The scurrilous attack on our democracy by far-right demagogues started with racist lies about immigrants, continued with the weaponizing of the Immigration Courts, and evolved with the compromising of the Article III Judiciary! But, it certainly hasn’t ended there!
Getting rid of the leftovers of the “Trump Kakistocracy” at DOJ and EOIR should be one of the top priorities of the Biden Administration’s “campaign to save American democracy!” Why isn’t it?
The unconscionable failure of Garland’s chief lieutenants, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and Elizabeth Prelogar — all of whom supposedly have some experience and expertise in constitutional law, human rights, civil rights, racial justice, and legal administration (talk about a shambles at EOIR!) — to get the job done for immigrant justice at DOJ also deserves to go “under the microscope” of critical examination.
How do they glibly go about their highly paid jobs daily while migrants suffer and die and their attorneys are forced to waste time and struggle against the absurdist disaster at EOIR? Can any of these “out of touch” bureaucrats and politicos even imagine what it’s like to be practicing at today’s legally incompetent, insanely mal-administered, intentionally anti-due-process, overtly user unfriendly EOIR?
By the grace of God, I’m not practicing before the Immigration Courts these days! But, after recent conversations with a number of top practitioners who are being traumatized, having their precious time wasted, and seeing their clients’ lives threatened by EOIR’s stunning ongoing incompetence and dysfunction, I don’t understand what gives high-level political appointees and smug bureaucrats the idea that they are entitled to be “above the fray” of the godawful dysfunction, downright stupidity, and human trauma at EOIR for which they are fully accountable!
One practitioner opened their so-called “EOIR Portal” to show me how they were being mindlessly “double and triple booked,” sometimes in different locations, even as we spoke. Cases set for 2024 were “accelerated” — for no obvious reason — to October 2022 without advance notice to or consultation with the attorney — a clear violation of due process! Asylum cases that would require a minimum of three hours for a fair hearing were being “shoehorned” into two-hour slots, again without consulting the parties!
Long a backwater of failed technology, the “powers that be” at EOIR and DOJ are misusing the limited, somewhat improved technology they now possess to make things worse: harassing practitioners, discouraging representation, and further undermining due process with haste makes waste “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.” Because of EOIR’s gross mismanagement, more Immigration Judges are actually producing more backlog, issuing more wrong decisions, and generating more unnecessary non-dispositive time-wasting motions. It’s an abuse of power and public funding on a massive, mind-boggling scale that undermines our entire justice system!
It seems that the “malicious incompetence” of the Trump DOJ has been exchanged for “just plain incompetence and intransigence” at Garland’s DOJ. Is this “change we should embrace?” Hell no!
Let’s hope that the real superheroes like Raed Gonzalez, folks working in the trenches of our failed justice system, can bail the rest of us out and inspire others to use all legal and political means at our disposal to rise up against Garland’s intransigence on immigration, human rights,and racial justice at DOJ!
I agree with President Biden that the extreme, insurrectionist far-right is the greatest threat to American democracy at this moment. But, it is by no means the ONLY one! It’s time for everyone committed to our nation’s future as a constitutional democracy to look closely at the deadly EOIR farce that threatens humanity, undermines the rule of law in America, and squanders tax dollars and demand positive change! Now!
It’s not rocket science, 🚀 even if it is inexplicably “over Garland’s head!”
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge/AG 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?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR! Public Realm
Here are about a week’s worth of reports from Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community on the continuing disintegration of justice in “Garland’s Courts:”
“[W]e conclude that the Board erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of CAT protection. The Board’s sole justification for that affirmance was the adverse credibility finding. The Board suggested that, under Fifth Circuit precedent, an adverse credibility finding defeats a claim for CAT protection. See Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir. 2019). But under the law of this circuit, an adverse credibility finding is “not determinative” of a claim for CAT protection.1 Ibarra Chevez v. Garland, 31 F.4th 279, 288 (4th Cir. 2022); see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 371 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Because there is no subjective component for granting relief under the CAT, the adverse credibility determination on which the IJ relied to deny [the petitioner’s] asylum claim would not necessarily defeat her CAT claim.”). The Board was thus obliged to also consider Njoka’s independent evidence in the context of his claim for CAT protection.2 See Camara, 378 F.3d at 371-72. Because the Board did not fulfill that duty, we will grant the petition for review in part and remand for the Board to do so.”
“Petitioner Oscar Gonzalez-Castillo was found to be ineligible for withholding of removal by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) because there were “serious reasons to believe that [he] committed a serious nonpolitical crime” in his home country of El Salvador. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii). The government only presented one piece of evidence supporting application of the serious nonpolitical crime bar, however. It was an INTERPOL Red Notice, described at greater length below. The Red Notice accused Gonzalez-Castillo of committing “strikes” on behalf of the gang MS13, allegedly committed on a date when Gonzalez-Castillo was in the United States rather than in El Salvador, based on the date of entry found by the IJ. We conclude that substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s finding, affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), that Gonzalez-Castillo is ineligible for withholding of removal based on the serious nonpolitical crime bar. This court has long interpreted “serious reasons to believe,” the standard set by the statute for the serious nonpolitical crime bar, as equivalent to probable cause. In this case, the INTERPOL Red Notice cannot, by itself, establish probable cause. The allocation of the burden of proof in immigration proceedings does not change this outcome. We accordingly grant Gonzalez-Castillo’s petition for review in part and remand to the agency to consider whether Gonzalez-Castillo is eligible for withholding of removal. We also grant the petition as to his claim under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), because the record reflects that the agency failed to consider all of Gonzalez-Castillo’s testimony and statements about the harms he suffered in El Salvador at the hands of state actors, so we remand for more complete consideration of the CAT claim. We are not persuaded, however, by arguments in the petition for review challenging the evaluation of evidence that was discussed or by the argument that that the IJ failed sufficiently to develop the record. We dismiss the petition in part as to his claim for asylum, because the arguments Gonzalez-Castillo raises on appeal with respect to the one-year bar for asylum relief were not exhausted before the BIA.”
[Hats off to Amalia Wille (argued) and Judah Lakin, Attorneys; Nicole Conrad and Joya Manjur, Certified Law Students; University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, California; for Petitioner, and John P. Elwood, Kaitlin Konkel, and Sean A. Mirski, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Fair Trials Americas!]
“We have held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) may rely on a prior adverse credibility determination to deny a motion to reopen if that earlier finding factually undercuts the petitioner’s new argument. Greenwood v. Garland, 36 F.4th 1232, 1234 (9th Cir. 2022). But that does not mean the BIA can deny a motion to reopen just because that motion touches upon the same claim or subject matter as the previous adverse credibility finding. Here, Rupinder Singh submitted new evidence about religious persecution independent of the prior adverse finding. The BIA thus erred in holding that the earlier adverse credibility finding barred Singh’s motion to reopen. The BIA also erroneously concluded that Singh failed to show that the conditions for Sikhs in India changed qualitatively since his last hearing. Clear evidence shows the contrary. We thus grant the petition and remand.”
“Karen Elizabeth Rivera-Medrano, a citizen and native of El Salvador, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of her request for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)–1208.18, and denying her motion to remand this case to the immigration judge (“IJ”) based on newly obtained evidence. We conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion to remand. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate, and remand for further proceedings. … The BIA’s oversight is particularly significant here, where the credibility determination rested considerably on minor inconsistencies in what the IJ concluded was an otherwise credible presentation.”
President Biden is correct that Trump and his MAGA GOP are the biggest threat to American democracy. But, “Dred Scottification,” systemic denial of due process, and racial injustice still running rampant in Immigration “Courts” under a Democratic Administration is right up there as an existential threat!
Additionally, I’ve been getting reports this week from practitioners in various locations that EOIR is embarking on yet another mindless, ill-informed round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — guaranteed to increase backlogs, decrease effective representation, and spew out more unprofessional and unjust results.
Once more, this inane initiative appears to have been undertaken with neither advance input from, nor sufficient notice to, those most affected — respondents and their attorneys! Same old, same old! This must stop!
Enough, already! Why aren’t all the “movers and shakers” of American law lined up in front of Garland’s Office demanding that he end the assault on our Constitution, common sense, good government, and human decency that unfolds every day in the disgracefully dysfunctional parody of a “court” system that is his sole responsibility!
The bar and NGO communities have to fight Garland’s assault on due process and good government with every available tool!
It’s easy guys, we just do what DHS Enforcement and our political bosses want and we can keep hopping around forever! Backlogs! Ha, the bigger the bigger they get, the more “secure” our jobs! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA10 Stop-Time Victory: Estrada-Cardona v. Garland
“The Attorney General may allow otherwise-removable aliens to remain in the country if, among other things, they have accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States. We call this form of discretionary relief “cancellation of removal.” Under the statutory “stop-time rule,” the period of continuous physical presence ends (A) when the alien is served with a notice to appear, or (B) when the alien has committed certain criminal offenses. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). Nothing more, nothing less. In the latest installment of “What Triggers the Stop-Time Rule?” the Government asks us to hold that the issuance of a final order of removal is a third, extra-statutory event sufficient to stop the clock. The plain language of the statute supports no such conclusion. Declining to read ambiguity into a statute where none exists, we hold a final order of removal does not stop the accrual of continuous physical presence. … This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in. … After years of statutory short-circuiting, the Government finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being wrong. … Because Congress unambiguously replaced the final-order rule with the stop-time rule, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Petitioner continued to accrue continuous physical presence after the immigration judge issued the order to voluntarily depart. … [W]e hold that because the BIA seems to have considered change-in-the-law equitable tolling arguments before, the BIA abused its discretion in this case by failing to “announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” … We cannot discern why the BIA found no extraordinary circumstance which would warrant equitable tolling, so the BIA abused its discretion. … On remand, the Government is free to argue that Petitioner should not be granted sua sponte reopening or equitable tolling. This opinion is expressly limited to two conclusions. First, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Second, the BIA’s explanations for denying sua sponte reopening and equitable tolling constituted, as a procedural matter, an abuse of discretion. For the reasons stated herein, we GRANT the petition for review and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”
“For years, if not decades, the Government sent aliens “notices to appear” which failed to include all the information required by § 1229(a)—like the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). For countless aliens, the only obstacle to being eligible for cancellation of removal was the Government’s position that a time-and-place-to-be-set notice to appear still triggers the stop-time rule. In Pereira, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s atextual interpretation and held a “putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the [alien]’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.” 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14. In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court cleared the way for many aliens, like Petitioner, to seek cancellation of removal.
But the Government quickly erected a new hurdle.”
The BIA could and should have prevented this debacle by insisting from the git go that the statute (“the law”) be followed by DHS and EOIR. Instead, at the behest of DHS, and perhaps to prevent tens of thousands of long-term residents who had received statutorily defective notices from seeking relief, the BIA misinterpreted the statute time after time.
The real stupidity here is that the requirement the BIA was pretzeling itself to avoid was hardly “rocket science” or burdensome: Serve a notice containing the actual date, time, and place of the hearing! One might ask what purpose is served by a so-called “Notice to Appear” that doesn’t notify the individual of where and when to appear?
Moreover, when the BIA started issuing their incorrect precedents, DHS and EOIR had a then-existing system — called “interactive scheduling” — that would have complied with the statute. The problem was that the “powers that be” at DOJ, EOIR, and DHS consciously decided NOT to use that system.
The apparent reason was the belief that complying with the law might have interfered with DHS arbitrarily filling the Immigration Courts with large “numbers” of cases to meet various enforcement “priorities” set from “on high.” Rather than doing its job, the BIA chose time and again to “go along to get along” with this nonsense!
Over and over, EOIR lets bogus DHS or Administration “enforcement priorities” or “improperly using the legal system as a deterrent” subvert due process, fundamental fairness, best interpretations, and practical solutions!
And, although Biden and Harris campaigned on a platform of bringing the rule of law and rationality back to immigration, the absurdity and illegality continues under Garland. He even sent OIL in to waste the time of the Article IIIs by mounting essentially frivolous defenses to the BIA’s malfeasance.
Perhaps worst of all, in addition to being denied timely justice, individuals and their lawyers dealing with Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR often are falsely blamed for causing the backlogs that are the primary result of DHS/EOIR incompetence and political meddling by unqualified bureaucrats. The latter don’t understand what really happens in Immigration Court and how to properly, fairly, and efficiently administer such a large and important court system.
The backlogs will continue to grow and the US justice system will crater because of bad immigration decisions generating skyrocketing litigation. Garland must replace the BIA with real expert appellate judges committed to fair, humane, and reasonable interpretations of immigration and human rights laws — without regard to whether those correct interpretations will be “career enhancing” or “career preserving.” In other words, judges who put justice before personal or institutional “survival.” Competent, expert, independent-minded judicial administrators with the guts to keep DOJ and DHS bureaucratic meddlers “at arm’s length” are also required.
Folks who could do the job are out here. But, that’s the problem! They belong in the key judicial judicial and administrative positions at EOIR where they can put any end to the due-process denying, backlog building dysfunction.
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Everyone committed to the future of American justice should be asking themselves why Garland hasn’t recruited and hired the right “Team Due Process” for EOIR! American justice can’t afford more of Garland’s inept, “go along to get along,” “afraid to say no to DHS enforcement” BIA and the rest of the EOIR “Deadly Clown Show” largely left over from past, failed Administrations!
“Petitioner Rodolfo Josue Tinoco Acevedo appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Because the BIA failed to address whether Tinoco Acevedo’s case should be remanded to a new immigration judge (“IJ”) under Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2015), we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … Rather than opine as to the exact grounds on which the BIA decided that the applicant was entitled to a new hearing before a new IJ in Matter of Y-S-L-C-, we remand for the BIA to interpret its precedent and address Tinoco Acevedo’s argument in the first instance. … we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand for the BIA to consider whether Tinoco Acevedo is entitled to a new hearing before a different IJ because the initial IJ’s conduct—both during and following the hearing—failed to satisfy the high standard expected of IJs under Matter of Y-S-L-C-. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.” [Note: The IJ was Roxanne C. Hladylowycz.]
[Hats off once again to IRAC superlitigator Ben Winograd!]
Yet another example of the BIA not being familiar with and applying their own precedents where they could be favorable to the respondent. Any old boilerplate BS will do as long is the result is “dismiss and remove.”
It’s one thing for the BIA to articulate “high standards” for IJ conduct in Matter of Y-S-L-C-. It’s quite another to consistently enforce them where the lives of migrants are at stake!
It was a particularly bad idea for the BIA to spring this haphazard “good enough for government work” approach when Ben Winograd is appellate counsel. Winograd knows the BIA and 4th Circuit precedents better than most BIA judges. And, unlike the latter, he’s willing to stand up for immigrants’ legal rights!
It would be better for Garland and American justice — not to mention those seeking justice in Immigration Court, too often in vain — if brilliant, due-process-oriented “practical scholars” like Ben Winograd replaced the “holdover BIA judges” who aren’t up to the job of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Remarkably, there was a time in the past when that long disregarded judicial essential was the “vision” of EOIR.
Ironically, the Article III Judges of this 4th Circuit panel (Chief Judge Gregory, Circuit Judges Motz and Wynn) understand the critical requirements for EOIR judging better than AG Garland! That’s a problem (although, concededly, outside the “World of EOIR” Garland has had his best week as AG)!
This opinion was written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory. He continues to be a leader among Article III Judges who take due process and immigrants’ rights seriously! He’s also someone who “gets” the clear connection between immigrant justice (or, in too many cases lack thereof) and racial justice.
With the Chief Immigration Judge position now vacant, Judge Garland has a golden opportunity to appoint a “Judge Gregory clone” to that critical position. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=30193&action=edit. That would also be a wise course for Garland to take to replace the current glaringly inadequate leadership at his failing BIA! How about Chief Appellate Immigration Judge/Chairman Ben Winograd?
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
Another timely report from Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis:
“Perez-Vasquez is correct that the BIA erred by failing to address key evidence. See Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 162 (5th Cir. 2018). Specifically, the BIA did not consider several factors he raised in his motion to reopen as to whether exceptional circumstances prevented his appearance at his removal hearing, including evidence of: (1) Perez’s multiple attempts to contact both the Portland and El Paso immigration courts; (2) the fact that he filed two change of address forms because the El Paso immigration court sent the notice of hearing to the wrong address after he filed his first one; (3) the fact that his hearing was set in El Paso—where his son was detained—as opposed to Portland despite informing officials that he was going to reside in Oregon; (4) his financial constraints in travelling to El Paso with three-days notice. See Matter of S-L-H- & L-B-L-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 318, 321 & n.4 (BIA 2021); see also Magdaleno de Morales v. INS, 116 F.3d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 1997) (considering whether alien attempted to contact the immigration court prior to hearing). Additionally, the BIA failed to address evidence of Perez’s regular check-ins with immigration officials and his diligence in filing a motion to reopen, which tend to show an incentive to appear. See Matter of S-L-H- & L-B-L-, 28 I. & N. Dec. at 321. … Perez-Vasquez’s petition for review is GRANTED in part, DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part. His case is REMANDED to the BIA for the limited purpose of considering—in light of the totality of the circumstances of his individual case—whether exceptional circumstances prevented his appearance at his removal hearing.”
[Hats off to NIPNLG Director of Legal Resources and Training Michelle N. Méndez!]
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLG
**********************
The facts of this case are somewhere out there in the “twilight zone.” Would any other tribunal in America waste two decisions denying an individual a fair hearing in this situation?
But, sadly, it’s what we have come to expect from a failing organization that is more interested in denying the right to be heard than in conducting hearings! Of course, EOIR is building record backlogs with “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” lousy leadership, bad, often anti-immigrant, jurisprudence, and infinite tolerance for substandard performance within its ranks! Enough!
Congratulation Michelle, my friend, to you and your all-star team over at NIPNLG. Perhaps the worst mistake that Garland has made as AG was not immediately “cleaning house” at EOIR and appointing folks like Michelle and others from the NDPA to fix the system: At long last, bring practical scholarship, creative thinking, “experience in the trenches,” and an unswerving commitment to due process into a dysfunctional organization and “take names and kick tail” of those judges and others who are still “with” the mindless, immoral, counterproductive, and wrong-headed “any reason to deny/courts as a soft deterrent” approach of the former Administration.
The EOIR system needs real, dynamic intellectual leaders and widely-respected, innovative, courageous “practical scholars” like Michelle! A few such folks exist in today’s EOIR. But, they are essentially buried in the “forest of intellectual and moral deadwood” that Garland has not yet cleared out!
We are well into the Biden/Harris Administration; but, bad and poorly qualified judges and weak or inept administrators from the Trump and Obama Administrations (or even Bush II) are still wreaking havoc on American justice and threatening our democracy.
By contrast, if not invited to fix the broken EOIR system “from the inside” Michelle and the other members of the NDPA are going to force change from the outside! You can count on it! They will keep at it until this dysfunctional, unfair, and mal-administered system either reforms or collapses under the weight of its own incompetence, cruelty, inefficiency, and just plain stupidity!
Consistently getting these cases right (an MTR, for Pete’s sake) isn’t “rocket science.” A competent IJ would have taken about 5 minutes or less to mark this “granted” and change venue to Portland. A competent appellate tribunal would have reversed and rocketed it back to the IJ with instructions to “cut the BS.”
But, it continues to be elusive for Garland’s “gang that can’t shoot straight!” This system “coddles” poorly performing judges at both levels!
Meanwhile, they “throw the book” at desperate individuals trying their best to navigate EOIR’s broken, irrational, and intentionally “user unfriendly” parody of a “court system.” It is truly the “Twilight Zone of American Justice!”
Think of it: Four years, three tribunals, at least five Federal Judges, and a bevy of lawyers and clerks have spent time on this case. And, EOIR is no nearer to getting to the merits than the day the NTA was issued! This system needs “practical problem solvers” like Michelle, NOT “stuck in the mud” bureaucrats masquerading as judges, professional judicial leaders, and role models.
Tell Garland it’s time for a better, smarter approach to justice at EOIR! The real talent is out here! What’s he waiting for?
For some (not all) EOIR judges, ignoring the record and making up reasons to deny asylum has become “business as usual.” The BIA, dominated by notable asylum deniers, often ”papers over” or “doubles down” on mistaken denials. There are no consequences for wrongfully endangering the lives of vulnerable asylum seekers. How would YOU (or for that matter Judge Garland) like YOUR life and future to be in the hands of an organization that has lost sight of its due process and fundamental fairness mission? Why isn’t fixing this unfair national disgrace (which falls disproportionately on individuals of color and other minorities) “job one” at the Biden/Harris/Garland DOJ? https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Mariana Ndudzi, a native and citizen of Angola, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying her appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She argues that the Agency erred in finding her not credible and failed to review her corroborating evidence. We vacate and remand. … The main issue in this appeal is whether the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. That decision is largely based on perceived contradictions between Ndudzi’s alleged statements in her CFI and her sworn testimony in her removal hearing. Ndudzi makes two arguments against the adverse credibility finding. … [N]one of the inconsistencies the Agency relied on are in fact inconsistent. … In sum, the BIA and IJ’s adverse credibility determination rests largely on “inconsistencies” in the record that are not actually inconsistent. … In summary, the BIA and IJ relied heavily on an unsupported conclusion that Ndudzi is not a credible witness. At the same time, there appears to be little dispute that, if Ndudzi’s claims are true, she would be entitled to asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). Because the adverse credibility finding is not supported by specific and cogent reasons derived from the record, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the decisions of the BIA and IJ denying Ndudzi’s application for asylum and CAT relief, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Because the adverse credibility finding is not supported by specific and cogent reasons derived from the record:”The 5th Circuit states the correct standard for adverse credibility findings, derived from BIA precedents! But, neither the IJ nor the BIA applied it! How is this professionally acceptable “judging” from supposed (but not really) “experts? Why is it tolerated at Garland’s DOJ?
Folks, stripped of the legal niceties, the most conservative Article III court in America just spent 16 pages analyzing and finding that the IJ and the BIA invented bogus “inconsistencies” to deny an otherwise clearly “grantable” asylum application from a woman who fled Angola.
Why is this type of unprofessional judicial performance, at both the trial and appellate levels of EOIR, acceptable in “life or death” cases? Why is it “OK” to submit asylum seekers to a “crap shoot” for their lives rather than giving them fair hearings before expert judges committed to great scholarship, careful analysis, and, most important, “getting it right the first time around?” Both the IJ and the BIA actually “went to some lengths” to invent reasons to disbelieve credible testimony. Isn’t unwillingness to fairly and routinely grant asylum to qualified applicants a major contributing factor in EOIR’s uncontrolled backlog? Wouldn’t getting it right at the “first level” promote efficiency and reduce the need for appellate litigation?
Also worthy of note: The 5th Circuit’s “footnote 2” punches huge holes in the myth of demeanor as an indicator of credibility:
Such deference is perhaps unfounded, however, given the wealth of contemporary psychological research suggesting that subjective perception of a witness’ demeanor is an unreliable indicator of the witness’ veracity. E.g., Mark W. Bennett, Unspringing the Witness Memory and Demeanor Trap: What Every Judge and Juror Needs to Know about Cognitive Psychology and Witness Credibility, 64 AM. U. L. REV. 1331, 1332 (2015) (“[C]ognitive psychological studies have consistently established that the typical cultural cues jurors rely on, including averting eye contact, a furrowed brow, a trembling hand, and stammering speech, for example, have little or nothing to do with a witness’s truthfulness.”); Liz Bradley & Hillary Farber, Virtually Incredible: Rethinking Deference to Demeanor When Assessing Credibility in Asylum Cases Conducted by Video Teleconference, 36 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 515, 535 (2022) (“Decades of research by social scientists have shown that the nonverbal ‘cues’ commonly associated with deception are based on false assumptions,” and cultural differences between an asylee and an IJ can “lead to cross- cultural misunderstandings of nonverbal cues,” especially when testimony is mediated through an interpreter).
Conscientious judges and advocates take note! In plain terms, “demeanor” is a largely bogus device used by bad judges to deny potentially valid claims. Obviously, in a “deny and deport oriented culture” like today’s EOIR (the very antithesis of the generous approach the Supremes in Cardoza and an earlier BIA in Mogharrabi said should apply to asylum adjudication), “bogus demeanor findings” become just another “device to deny protection.”
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
07-23-22
Revised on 07-23-22 to reflect the panel’s revised opinion.
“Petitioner Mario Rajib Flores Molina (“Flores Molina”) participated in demonstrations against the ruling regime in his native Nicaragua, where he witnessed the murder of his friend and fellow protester by police and paramilitary members. Thereafter, he was publicly marked as a terrorist, threatened with torture and death by government operatives, and forced to flee his home. Flores Molina, however, was tracked down at his hideaway by armed paramilitary members, and was forced to flee for his life a second time. Flores Molina still was not safe. He was discovered, yet again, assaulted, and threatened with death by a government-aligned group. Flores Molina ultimately fled a third time— from Nicaragua altogether—out of fear for his safety. He eventually presented himself to authorities at the United States border and sought asylum and other relief. When Flores Molina sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) determined that his past experiences in Nicaragua did not rise to the level of persecution. They also determined that Flores Molina did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ and BIA denied all forms of relief and ordered Flores Molina’s removal to Nicaragua. Flores Molina petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his appeal of the IJ’s decision, as well as of the BIA’s subsequent denial of his motion to reopen proceedings. Because the record compels a finding that Flores Molina’s past experiences constitute persecution and because the BIA erred in its analysis of the other issues, we grant the first petition and remand for further proceedings. Accordingly, we dismiss the second petition as moot.
[Hats off to Mary-Christine Sungaila (argued) and Joshua R. Ostrer, Buchalter APC, Irvine, California; Paula M. Mitchell, Attorney; Tina Kuang (argued) and Natalie Kalbakian (argued), Certified Law Students, Loyola Law School!]
*******************************
EOIR’s deadly, incorrect approach to sending refugees back to face persecution is legally incorrect, factually erroneous, and morally bankrupt. But, it does have one huge fan. Recently appointed Trump Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke:
In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Congress codified the highly deferential substantial evidence test and established what should be our court’s guiding star in the review of immigration decisions: that “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” INA § 242(b)(4)(B) (codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (emphasis added)). Congress later amended the INA by passing the REAL ID Act, further reining in our role and discretion as a reviewing court and stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear certain immigration claims. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1698 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). Over time, however, this court’s decisions have chipped away at these statutory standards—broadening the scope and standard of our review far beyond the limited and deferential posture that Congress unmistakably set out in the INA. See id.
To properly apply our deferential standard of review, we are supposed to scour the record to answer a single question: could any reasonable adjudicator have agreed with the agency’s result, or does the record as a whole compel a different conclusion? See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (explaining that substantial evidence review requires that we review “the record considered as a whole” and reverse the agency only if no reasonable factfinder could agree with its conclusion); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995) (describing Elias-Zacarias as “the touchstone” and “definitive statement of ‘substantial evidence’ in the context of . . . factual determinations in asylum cases”). On its face, this is an exceptionally deferential standard of review. But there’s more.
“Scour the record” to defeat asylum claims that should have been granted below, huh?That clearly defective, biased, one-sided approach is “due process and fundamental fairness” for a “person” under our Constitution? Or maybe asylum seekers of color aren’t “persons” to VanDyke and his righty cronies? That’s how VanDyke would like the Constitution applied if his life were at stake?
He’d like to use legal mumbo-jumbo to allow refugees to have their lives ended or threatened by non-expert decision makers making it up as the go along to deny meritorious claims. Under his “standard of review,” judicial review would be no review at all. Just scour the record for any obscure reason to deny asylum or, failing that, just make one up. Doesn’t matter as long as the individual loses and gets removed! That’s pretty much what too many EOIR judges and BIA “panels” (which can be a single judge) are already doing. Why add another layer of intellectual dishonesty, moral corruption, and absence of judicial ethics to the mess?
Mr. Flores-Molina is not buy any means the only one subjected to Judge VanDyke’s loony right-wing legal nonsense.You can “meet” the judge right here:
“The Rude Trump Judge Who’s Writing the Most Bonkers Opinions in America.”
One might legitimately ask why already vulnerable asylum seekers and their courageous lawyers are being subjected to such judicial abuse at all levels of our system. Why doesn’t Garland just appoint “real, expert, fair EOIR Judges” who will do the right thing at the “retail level” without having to enter the “appellate circus” 🤡 that Trump and the GOP have created?
“[T]he BIA upheld an adverse credibility determination that the IJ reached in part based on an inconsistency in Reyes’s story that simply was not an inconsistency. Nor can we say that absent the adverse credibility finding, Reyes’s CAT claim would necessarily fail. We therefore must vacate the BIA’s ruling affirming the IJ’s denial of that claim. … Reyes’s petition for review is granted, the ruling of the BIA is vacated, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Here’s a key sentence from the preamble to the L.A. Declaration on Migration and Protection:
We are committed to protecting the safety, dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced and stateless persons regardless of their migratory status.
So I’d like to know how the following fit within our solemn commitment to “protecting the safety, dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, refugees, asylum seekers?”
Falsely finding that systematic assaults, death threats, being driven from your home, and being tracked down after fleeing, carried out by a Nicaraguan Government so repressive that it wasn’t even invited to the L.A. Conference, do not constitute persecution; and
Inventing a bogus inconsistency in an asylum seeker’s testimony and using it to wrongfully deny asylum.
Clearly they don’t! And, this kind of official misconduct goes on somewhere at EOIR on both levels every day! Just ask any experienced asylum practitioner! So, why hasn’t Garland replaced the EOIR judges who are not qualified to be deciding asylum claims with readily available expert talent?
Asylum seekers face systematically unfair treatment by “judges” who serve at Garland’s pleasure. Many of those judges, particularly at the BIA, were appointed or “elevated” by Garland’s openly xenophobic, virulently anti-asylum predecessors during the Trump regime. Yet, inexplicably, they continue to inflict bad decisions and sloppy, legally defective, morally vapid work on the most vulnerable? Why?
What if we had an expert, due-process-oriented Immigration Court that uniformly interpreted asylum law correctly and actually granted much-needed and well-deserved protection? What if asylum seekers didn’t have to enter the “Circuit Court crap shoot” — or deal with bad “no review is judicial review” judges like Judge VanDyke — to get life-saving justice? What if the rule of law and human rights were honored and advanced in Immigration Court rather than being mocked and disparaged? What if Immigration Courts modeled good judicial behavior instead of operating as a shockingly dysfunctional parody of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices?
Wouldn’t it be better for everyone?
Perhaps there is some modest movement in the right direction. I’ve received reports from at least two Immigration Courts that unqualified Trump-era appointees have been removed over over the past week. That’s a start! But, it will take lots more “removals or reassignments” and a complete “redo” of the mal-functioning BIA to get due process, expertise, fundamental fairness, and best (as opposed to worst) judicial practices back on track at EOIR!
“The BIA reviews de novo the IJ’s determination of “questions of law, discretion, and judgment,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii), including whether an alien’s prior offense is a “particularly serious crime.” It is unclear whether the BIA undertook that de novo review here, because it applied a “presumption” that Petitioner’s conviction was a particularly serious crime and required him to “rebut” this presumption. But for those offenses that are not defined by the statute itself as “per se a particularly serious crime,” the BIA’s precedent establishes “a multi-factor test to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a crime is particularly serious.” Bare, 975 F.3d at 961. Moreover, we have rejected the view that there is any subset of such cases that is exempt from this multi-factor analysis “based solely on the elements of the offense.” Blandino-Medina, 712 F.3d at 1348. The BIA’s application of a rebuttable presumption is difficult to square with these precedents, and the Government concedes in its brief that the BIA’s application of such a presumption “appears erroneous.” The BIA committed an error of law, and abused its discretion, in failing to apply the correct legal standards in assessing whether Petitioner’s offense was a “particularly serious crime.” We therefore remand to the BIA to consider Petitioner’s application for withholding of removal under the correct standards.”
[Hats off to Nancy Alexander, Kari E. Hong, Boston College Law School, Newton, Massachusetts; Elisa Steglich, Attorney; Simon Lu and Jill Applegate, Supervised Law Student; University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas; for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Lawyers Association!]
Nancy Alexander ESQUIRE
**************************
Congrats to Nancy, Kari, and the rest of their team!
Even OIL couldn’t defend the BIA’s shoddy work here!
Know what builds unnecessary backlog fast?
“Over-denial”
Lack of positive guidance
Sloppy work
Assembly line justice
Remands
Lack of practical expertise and “big picture” perspective.
So, why hasn’t Garland replaced his “Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight” at the BIA with real “practical expert judges” — NDPA all-stars 🌟 like Kari Hong and Nancy Alexander! Judges like Kari and Nancy would “get ‘em right” in the first place and insure that Immigration Judges do the same!
Why is his system struggling and failing when the top-flight judicial talent to fix it is out there in the “real world?”
With human lives and the future of our democracy at stake, why is inferior work product and poor judging acceptable in Garland’s Immigration Court system?
How is “make it up as you go along justice” Due Process in Garland’s Courts?
Why isn’t Garland being held accountable for the “parody of justice” that plays out every day in his dysfunctional “courts?”
“Petitioner Giscard Nkenglefac, a native and citizen of Cameroon, applied for admission into the United States on May 9, 2018. The immigration judge (“IJ”), Agnelis Reese, denied Nkenglefac’s application for relief from removal and ordered him removed to Cameroon after determining that Nkenglefac was not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) subsequently affirmed the IJ’s determination, and Nkenglefac was removed to Cameroon. Nkenglefac now petitions for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from the IJ’s denial of application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Nkenglefac challenges the IJ’s reliance on his U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and asylum credible fear interviews that were not entered into the hearing record of the removal proceeding, nor, indeed, raised in that hearing at all, to make an adverse credibility finding. … Nkenglefac argues that the IJ erred as a matter of law by drawing negative credibility inferences from summaries of his CBP and credible fear interviews because neither interview was submitted into the record during his proceeding, much less adverted to. Nkenglefac also argues that he did not waive this argument because he could not have raised the issue before the IJ given that he had no notice the IJ would rely on these documents prior to issuance of her decision. … [A]t no point during the hearing before the IJ was Nkenglefac provided with the opportunity to explain any apparent inconsistencies or dispute the accuracy of the records in question, or cross examine the individuals who prepared the interview summaries, much less object to their introduction, or offer views on weight to be given to the evidence. Inspection of the hearing record confirms that Nkenglefac was not given the opportunity to explain perceived inconsistencies in the government summaries of his prior uncounseled interviews.5 Indeed, the voluminous testimonial record, including extensive government cross-examination and IJ direct inquiry, gives no indication that Nkenglefac had previously made any inconsistent statements, yet the IJ, three months later, determined that “inconsistencies and omissions . . . undermine critical parts of Respondent’s claim” to such an extent that the court denied “Respondent’s application based on lack of credibility.” … The BIA majority—affirming the IJ’s decision—also determined that Nkenglefac’s argument regarding the absence of the CBP and credible fear interviews from the record was “waived” because “the [trial] transcript reflects that [Nkenglefac’s] former counsel never requested that these records . . . be made a part of the record.” However, we fail to understand why Nkenglefac’s counsel should have introduced these government summaries into the record to anticipate and explain later-perceived inconsistencies when they were never identified, referenced, or discussed. It is also worth noting that there is no evidence—beyond the statement of the BIA majority—that Nkenglefac’s counsel failed to preserve this issue on appeal. The issue was discussed at length in Nkenglefac’s appeal brief to the BIA and again in his brief to this court. Furthermore, this observation stands in contravention to existing BIA law that “an adverse credibility determination should not be based on inconsistencies that take an alien by surprise.” Matter of Y-I-M-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 724, 726-29 (BIA 2019) (quote at 726). Notably, the Government’s brief on appeal does not argue that Nkenglefac has waived this argument. … We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND this case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats waaaayyyy off to Homero López, Jr., who reports that he is in touch with his client and is hopeful of bringing him back to the USA. Audio of the oral argument is here.]
Once again, credibility, the problematic issue in this case, is not a profound legal concept. It’s supposedly the “bread and butter of Immigration Judging.” Yet, both the IJs and the BIA continue to often get it wrong. Perhaps “dead wrong” in the cases of asylum seekers! Why isn’t this fundamental flaw at the all-important “retail level” of our justice system receiving the necessary attention and corrections from Garland and the Biden Administration?
As one “Courtside Commenter” said:
I think this is the IJ who retired with a 100% asylum denial rate [actually it was 99.4%, denying 155 of 156 claims she “heard” — but didn’t listen to — over a career that lasted far too long]!And Cameroon is now a TPS country.
This decision is proof perfect of EOIR’s deportation assembly line approach.And I’ve mentioned a number of times the alarming problems with CBP arrival statements noted by the US Commission for International Religious Freedom, an internal government component, which has repeatedly flagged the fact that the resulting “statements” are not the verbatim transcripts they appear to be, and often contain questions that were never actually asked of the respondent.
As pointed out in the above comment, Cameroon is now a TPS country. Additionally, one of the “five top nationalities” that came before this “asylum denial machine” were asylum seekers from Eritrea. Although they found no success with her, the EOIR statistics for FY 2022 show that that every “merits decision” on Eritrean asylum was granted. There were exactly ZERO, “0” merits denials. Seehttps://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107366/download.
Thankfully, Judge Reese has retired. But the endemic problems she symbolized, the lack of effective appellate review, and disdain for due process for asylum seekers by the BIA remain overarching problems that Garland has stubbornly failed to effectively address.
Additionally, in another “under the radar yet highly significant problem,” Garland’s OIL within the USDOJ Civil Division continues to “defend the indefensible” coming out of the BIA. This wastes Government and private sector litigation resources, not to mention precious Article III Court time. It also turns due process and immigrant justice in the U.S. into a random game of chance.
Obviously, there is a severe lack of leadership all over the USDOJ under Garland. Moving toward the “halfway point” in the Biden Administration, there still is no appointed and confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division!
Associate Provost/Co-Director of the Immigration Clinic/Professor of the Practice Laila L. Hlass Tulane Law
Laila, my friend, everywhere I look you’re making news! Here’s Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis on Layla’s well-deserved Lisa Brodyaga Award from the National Immigration Project:
Laila was a “guest lecturer” in my Refugee Law and Policy class during her time as a Fellow at the CALS Asylum Clinic at Georgetown Law. Since then, I have “returned the favor” by traveling to Tulane Law, both virtually and in person, to speak to Laila’s class and other immigration events. Laila has been recognized for “putting Tulane Law on the map” for innovative practical scholarship in immigration and international human rights and excellence in clinical teaching. No wonder she carries a “string of titles” at Tulane Law!
Laila is also one of many exciting examples of how clinical immigration and human rights professors have not only moved into the “academic mainstream” at major American law schools, but have been recognized as leaders and innovators by the larger academic communities in which they serve. Immigration law teaching has come a long way since the late INS General Counsel Charlie Gordon’s Immigration Law Class at Georgetown was the “only game in town.” (Historical trivia note: My good friend the late BIA Judge Lauri Filppu and I “aced” Charlie’s class in 1974, thus “besting” our then-supervisor at the BIA. That could have been a “career limiting” move. But, we both ended up on the “Schmidt Board” in the 1990s.)
Many congrats, Laila, on an already amazing career with even more achievements and recognition in your future. Thanks for being such a brilliant, inspiring, and dynamic role model for the New Due Process Army!
