"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
“The IJ granted Omorodion’s application for deferral of removal under the CAT and, after an initial remand by the BIA, reaffirmed that decision. In July 2018 the BIA vacated the IJ’s grant of CAT relief and ordered Omorodion removed, concluding that Omorodion did not show that she would suffer torture or that public officials would acquiesce in her torture. … First, Omorodion argues that the BIA mischaracterized and ignored key evidence. We agree. … The BIA also erred by failing to apply the clear error standard in its review of the IJ’s “predictive finding that [Omorodion] would suffer torture by or with the acquiescence of the Nigerian government.” … The BIA erred as a matter of law when it overlooked such evidence and rejected the IJ’s predictive finding. To summarize, we grant the petition and remand because the BIA overlooked material components of the record and misconstrued others. See Xiao Kui Lin v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 217, 220 (2d Cir. 2009). Should the BIA vacate the IJ’s grant of CAT relief on remand, it should explain where it identifies clear error in the IJ’s factfinding based on the totality of the record. If any vacatur is not due to clear error, the BIA must otherwise “provide sufficient explanation to permit proper appellate review” of its decision. Hui Lin Huang, 3 677 F.3d at 137. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
“We remand for the agency to conduct the required factfinding and analysis regarding the reasonableness of Perez Nagahama’s delay in filing her asylum claim following her changed circumstances. An asylum applicant must file an asylum “application . . . within 1 year after the date of . . . arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). There is an exception for “changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum.” Id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Where there is such a change, the applicant must file an application “within a reasonable period given those ‘changed circumstances.’” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii). The IJ concluded and the BIA assumed that Perez Nagahama’s circumstances changed materially when she began living as openly gay in April 2015. What is a reasonable period for filing after a changed circumstance is a fact-specific inquiry: IJs should make specific “findings of fact with respect to the particular circumstances involved in the delay of the respondents’ applications” to determine the reasonableness of the delay. Matter of T-M-H- & S-W-C-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 193, 195–96 (B.I.A. 2010). … Perez Nagahama has raised a reviewable question of law that the agency failed to apply the proper standard because it did not consider her specific circumstances before concluding that her delay was unreasonable. … The agency did not conduct the required factfinding and analysis. … Here, the IJ did not make findings of facts regarding the reasonableness of the delay in light of the attendant circumstances. The BIA should have remanded to the IJ to consider whether the delay was reasonable. … Instead, the BIA made its own factual determinations that Perez Nagahama beginning to live as openly gay did not make her delay reasonable and that the other facts she pointed to were not related to this underlying changed circumstance. Compounding this issue, the BIA gave no reasoning for its conclusion that the relevant circumstance made her delay unreasonable.”
[Hats off to Genet Getachew!]
**********************
Clearly, the BIA’s performance in this and other recent CA remands is far below even the “good enough for government work” mantra that prevails at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR! Why does Garland think “NOT good enough for government work” is “goodenough for due process for ‘persons’ who happen to be foreign nationals” with the their lives at stake in his “smashed to smithereens” piece of our “justice” system?
The only way Garland gets to where his EOIR is today is by “Dred Scottification:” That is, intentionally treating “persons” (“humans”) in his Immigration Courts as “non –persons” under the Due Process Clause of our Constitution. If that sounds like a “Stephen Miller wet dream”🤮 (grotesque as that image undoubtedly is), it’s because that’s exactly what it is! How does a Dem Administration get away with this affront to due process, equal protection, and racial justice in America?
Kind of makes me wonder what they taught at Harvard Law (Garland’s alma mater) and other so-called “elite” law schools. I daresay that virtually all law students I have encountered in teaching immigration and refugee law for a number of years at Georgetown Law would have done better than the BIA had these cases been on my final exams.
The BIA’s inability to fairly and competently apply basic legal standards, honestly and professionally evaluate evidence of record, give asylum applicants the “benefit of the doubt” to which they are entitled under international standards, provide positive practical expert guidance on granting relief, eliminate “asylum free zones,” promote uniform outcomes, and develop and enforce “best judicial practices” is a major factor in the incredible two million case backlog that Garland has built in Immigration Court! His failure to take corrective action by replacing the BIA with competent, expert, unbiased appellate judges is a major breach of both ethical standards and his oath of office! How does he get away with it?
Thousands of asylum applicants at our border are being illegally returned to danger! Individuals with valid claims to be in the United States are routinely being denied relief for specious reasons and clear misapplications of basic legal standards in his “courts” —powerful indicators of systemic bias that should have been forcefully addressed by Garland on “day one” of his tenure at EOIR, as experts recommended.
Garland’s victims’ lives are irrevocably ruined or even ended! Misery is inflicted on their family, loved ones, and American communities! Dedicated lawyers working overtime to save lives are mistreated by Garland’s courts and traumatized by sharing the horrible consequences to their clients of systemic inferior judging! America is denied legal immigrants we need!
Our Federal justice system is overwhelmed with wasteful and never-ending litigation of immigration cases that should have been timely granted in the first instance and bad policies that never should have seen the light of day. In this respect, note that the IJ actually got it right in Omorodion! Then, in attempting to accommodate DHS and achieve an illegal removal, the BIA completely botched it on appeal! Even where justice prevails at the “retail” level, the BIA screws it up!
Yet Garland just shows up for work and draws his paycheck as if this were the way “justice” is supposed to work in America and fixing it is “below his pay level!” Gimmie a break!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, many congrats and much appreciation to NDPA stalwarts Tom Moseley and Genet Getachew!
I am particularly honored to recognize the litigation greatness of my long-time friend, former INS colleague, and NDPA litigation icon 👍🏼🗽 Tom Moseley. He honed his complex litigation skills as an INS Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY during my tenure as Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel at the “Legacy INS.”
Since leaving INS decades ago, Tom has been a tower of “practical impact litigation” and “Life-Saving 101” in New Jersey and beyond. Thanks for all you do, my friend!
“This appeal presents the question of whether the emergency military construction authority provided by 10 U.S.C. § 2808 (“Section 2808”) authorized eleven border wall construction projects on the southern border of the United States. We conclude that it did not. We also consider whether the district court properly granted the Organizational Plaintiffs a permanent injunction and whether the district court improperly denied the State Plaintiffs’ request for a separate permanent injunction. We affirm the decision of the district court on both counts. … We hold that the States and Sierra Club both have Article III standing and a cause of action to challenge the Federal Defendants’ border wall construction projects, that Section 2808 did not authorize the challenged construction, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in either granting a permanent injunction to Sierra Club or in denying a separate permanent injunction to the States.”
**************
PANEL:THOMAS, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW and COLLINS, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas; Dissent by Judge Collins
The only real question here is whether the Supremes will bail out the regime’s scofflaws once again.
