Matter of NEGUSIE – immigrationcourtside.com

🆘⚖️MR. NEGUSIE’S 17-YR ODYSSEY INTO JUDICIAL NEVER-NEVER LAND CONTINUES — GARLAND’S CERTIFICATION OF MATTER OF NEGUSIE, 28 I&N DEC. 399 (A.G. 2021) — A Microcosm Of All That’s Wrong With Our Immigration Court System — 17 Years, 4 Administrations, 5 Different Tribunals, 0 Final Resolution! — Calling Charles Dickens!

https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMTEwMTIuNDcyNTU4OTEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy5qdXN0aWNlLmdvdi9lb2lyL3BhZ2UvZmlsZS8xNDQxMjYxL2Rvd25sb2FkIn0.5W9gUw8pz8DPzsg7kAN8OnR6-Fn9dKgiW5oNm1UqGzM/s/842922301/br/113790680583-l

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 399 (A.G. 2021) Interim Decision #4029

Matter of NEGUSIE, Respondent

Decided by Attorney General October 12, 2021

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General

BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I direct the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer this case to me for review of its decision. The Board’s decision in this matter is automatically stayed pending my review. See Matter of Haddam, A.G. Order No. 2380-2001 (Jan. 19, 2001).

*****************************

This terse decision conceals a total, disgraceful mess in our justice system!

Mr. Negusie, the respondent in this case, filed his asylum application before an Immigration Judge in 2004 — 17 years ago!
In 2005, the IJ denied his application because of the so-called “persecutor bar,” but “deferred” his removal to Eritrea under the Convention Against Torture(“CAT”).
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision.
In 2007, the 5th Circuit affirmed the BIA.
In 2009, the Supreme Court reversed the BIA, and remanded the case to the BIA under their “Chevron doctrine” of “judicial task avoidance,” Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009].
- At that time, in separate opinions, five Justices expressed rather definitive views about the substantive legal issue.
- Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito all clearly believed that there should be no “duress exception” to the persecutor bar.
- Justices Stevens and Breyer obviously thought that there was a “duress exception.”
- The other four, Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Kennedy, Souter, & Ginsburg, had obviously studied matter, but rather than resolving the issue, chose to “punt” it back to the BIA for their supposed “expert interpretation” — an unusual “vote of confidence” in an administrative body they had just found to have misinterpreted their prior decisions.
“The Interregnum:” For the next nine years, during which both Administrations and BIA membership changed several times, the BIA “ruminated” on the task assigned them by the Supremes. Finally, in 2018, the BIA issued a precedent decision finding a limited “duress defense.” Matter of Negusie, 27 I&N Dec. 347 (BIA 2018). Nevertheless, the BIA found that Negusie didn’t qualify for that limited defense. So, Negusie lost! But, that was hardly the end of the matter within the convoluted world of the DOJ!
Despite the Government’s prevailing in Negusie’s case, four months later, AG Sessions “certified” that decision to himself.
Two years later, in 2020, another AG, Billy Barr, who had succeeded Sessions, reversed the BIA in a precedent, finding that there was no “duress exception,” however limited, to the “persecutor bar.” Matter of Negusie, 28 I&N Dec. 120 (A.G. 2020). Mr.Negusie lost once again, but this time on a different rationale than employed by the BIA!
The case was returned to the BIA for “background checks,” since Mr. Negusie’s removal had been indefinitely “deferred” under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). After Mr.Negusie’s background “cleared,” the BIA apparently entered a final order of removal to Eritrea, but “deferred” execution of that order under CAT.
Thereafter, on April 15, 2021, Mr. Negusie exercised his right to seek review in the 5th Circuit for the second time. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/21-60314
But, before that review was complete, AG Garland “certified” the last BIA decision (actually Barr’s 2020 precedent) for review, thus “staying” its effect.
Summary: one IJ decision; three trips to the BIA; two trips to the Fifth Circuit; three AG decisions; one trip to the Supremes = no decision on a 2004 application!
In other words, five different tribunals have had this case before them at least nine times over 17 years without finally resolving the issue!
In the meantime, I can tell you from past experience that this issue arises on a regular basis before Immigration Judges. They, in turn, must resolve it as best they can without definitive guidance from higher judicial authorities, sometimes relying on “precedents” that later are vacated or invalidated.
The solution: How about a BIA made up of real judges: true nationally respected experts and “practical scholars” in immigration, human rights, and due process who will provide timely, legally correct guidance at the initial appeal level?
And, if they do happen to get it wrong, how about Supremes that decide the legal issues coming before them, as they are paid to do, rather than aimlessly “orbiting” legal questions back to the lower tribunals that got them wrong in the first place under the highly problematic “Chevron doctrine of high-level judicial task avoidance?”
Also, in the event such reforms were made, how about Attorneys General, who traditionally have particular expertise in neither immigration nor human rights, keeping their “fingers out of the pie” and letting the real experts do the work? (In this respect, while AG Sessions had a long, disgraceful political history of advancing far right, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic tropes, such that his nomination to become a Federal Judge was rejected by his own party, no recognized immigration/human rights expert would classify Sessions as having either legal expertise in the area or proper qualifications to serve in any judicial capacity including a “quasi-judicial” one, particularly in areas where he had previously and consistently shown extreme bias and intellectual dishonesty in his public statements and actions. Nor did AG Barr have any legitimate expertise that would qualify him to participate in quasi-judicial capacity in immigration and human rights cases. While, ordinarily, a Federal Circuit Judge with long service would acquire some immigration experience and perhaps develop expertise, Judge Garland sat on the DC Circuit, which did not regularly review Immigration Court cases, because there is no Immigration Court sitting in D.C.)
One might also ask why the Supremes would remand to a purportedly “expert agency” for statutory interpretation, only to have the process hijacked by politicos?
Finally, multi-raspberries to Congress who let this disgraceful abuse of both taxpayer resources and our justice system go on, in plain sight, for decades without corrective action. America needs an independent Article I Immigration Court, with judges selected on a merit basis, NOW!
Where’s Charles Dickens when we need him? See, e.g., Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-15-21

⚖️🗽NDPA “PRACTICAL SCHOLARS” CORNER: Professors Elizabeth Keyes & Kate Evans On How To Combat “Billy The Bigot’s Bogus Law” Masquerading As “Legal Analysis” In Matter of Negusie! — How To Apply “Extreme Legal Duress” To Billy’s Intentional Misconstruction Of The Duress Defense!

All,

In the hopes this will be helpful to any of you who are dealing with Negusie issues, I wanted to share my forthcoming article on Duress in Immigration Law, which evolved from my own litigation in this arena. As we challenge this new AG decision (for however long it lasts!), I highly, highly recommend Kate Evans’s Drawing Lines Among the Persecuted, as well.

I am so looking forward to critiquing the AG’s decision thanks to the scholarship Margaret Taylor and Maureen Sweeney have done around deference in the context of AG certification. This community is unendingly helpful!

Liz

Elizabeth Keyes

Associate Professor, Director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic

University of Baltimore School of Law

*******************

Thanks for sharing, Liz & Kate!

Soon, Billy will be peddling his bias, bigotry, and balderdash in Breitbart News or the National Enquirer where it deservedly will get little notice outside the “Twilight Zone” where Billy and his buddies operate! (Sorry, Billy, but you might have fallen below the “Fox News Threshold!”)

Folks like Liz and Kate are leading intellects with experience and credentials earned by working in the trenches at the “retail levels” of our now-cratering justice system! They would solve problems, “get this system working” the way it should, and make equal justice for all a reality!

I hope that the Biden-Harris Administration will give them, and others like them, many women and minorities, a chance to do just that when it comes to filling judicial and public policy positions! We need to get the immense brain power, humanity, energy, and positive leadership currently available in the private, NGO, and clinical academic sectors into public policy positions where they can achieve “maximum common good” for all of us!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-09-17

AFTER 16 YEARS OF LITIGATION, BARR REVERSES BIA, STICKS IT TO FORMER CHILD SOLDIER SUBJECTED TO DURESS! — Matter of NEGUSIE, 28 I&N Dec. 120 (A.G. 2020)

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/a-g-barr-on-asylum-persecution-duress-coercion-matter-of-negusie

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

A.G. Barr on Asylum, Persecution, Duress, Coercion: Matter of Negusie

Matter of Negusie, 28 I&N Dec. 120 (A.G. 2020)

(1) The bar to eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal based on the persecution of others does not include an exception for coercion or duress.

(2) The Department of Homeland Security does not have an evidentiary burden to show that an applicant is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on the persecution of others. If evidence in the record indicates the persecutor bar may apply, the applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it does not.

“I vacate the Board’s June 28, 2018 decision. The Board’s decision did not adopt the best interpretation of the persecutor bar viewed in light of its text, context, and history, as well as of longstanding Board precedent and policies of the Department of Justice. In addition, the decision did not appropriately weigh relevant diplomatic considerations, and it introduced collateral consequences that would be detrimental to the administration of immigration law. The Board’s decision also placed an initial burden on the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to show evidence indicating the applicant assisted or otherwise participated in persecution, which is contrary to the plain language of the governing regulations. Because the Board incorrectly recognized a duress exception to the persecutor bar, and incorrectly placed an initial burden on DHS to show evidence the persecutor bar applies, I overrule those determinations and any other Board precedent to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion. I vacate the Board’s decision and remand this matter to the Board with instructions to place the case on hold pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(6)(ii)(B) pending the completion or updating of all identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations. Once those investigations or examinations are complete, the Board should enter an appropriate order.”

****************

Fairly predictable given the regime and a system that lets a political official interfere in the quasi-judicial decision-making process in violation of due process and fundamental fairness! Remarkably, Barr injects “diplomatic considerations” into what is supposed to be due process, impartial adjudication system! He also shifts the burden of proof to the respondent, rather than the DHS where the BIA had placed it.

This case was remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court after the BIA got it wrong more than a decade ago. If it goes back to the Court again, the former “child soldier” in 1995, when the events occurred, could well be a “senior citizen” by the time the system decides his fate.

In the course of remanding the case, the Supremes noted that different interpretations of the statute by the BIA with respect to the duress defense were available. As has become the norm these days, faced with various reasonable possibilities, the Attorney General chose the one “least favorable to the foreign national.”

This case also points out the absurdity of the “Chevron doctrine” in immigration. In 2009 when this case was before the Supremes, there was a clearly developed record. Additionally, it was clear that a number of the then Justices had well-defined, if conflicting, views on the “duress defense” in this context. Yet the Court remanded for the BIA to exercise “Chevron authority” to make another interpretation. That process has taken 11 years!

Whatever happened to the plain old fashioned idea that Justices of our Supremes are paid to decide what the law is so that it can be carried out by the Executive?As I have stated on many occasions, “Chevron deference” is nothing more than “judicial task avoidance” at the highest levels!

The “good news” from the respondent’s standpoint is that the BIA’s prior grant of “deferral of removal” to Eritrea stands. Therefore, it seems likely that he will be able to remain in the U.S. in “limbo” status for the rest of his life, no matter how the asylum litigation eventually plays out.

It also illustrates the extent to which the Government will go to deprive an individual of a chance to regularize status in the United States. This protracted litigation isn’t about “removing a bad guy” from the U.S. Rather it’s about insuring that a foreign national who has been residing here with no apparent incidents for the past 16 years, and is likely to be among us for the rest of his life, will continue to “twist in the wind” without permanent legal status or any chance of becoming a full member of our society.

A regime that mindlessly rushes cases to deportation without fair deliberation in many cases has no problems making the system move at a glacial pace, wasting time, and squandering legal resources when it wants to screw the asylum seeker.

PWS

11-06-20

GONZO’S WORLD: BOGUS “COURT SYSTEM” REVEALED IN ALL OF ITS DISINGENUOUS INGLORIOUSNESS — SESSIONS MOVES TO TRASH THE “LIMITED DURESS” DEFENSE FOR ASYLEES BEFORE TRUMP TURNS HIM BACK INTO A PUMPKIN (AFTER HALLOWEEN) – Why Have A BIA If It Is Only Permitted To Decide Major Issues In Favor Of The DHS Position? — Matter of Daniel Girmai NEGUSIE, 27 I&N Dec. 481 (A.G. 2018)

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1101746/download

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 481 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3943

Matter of Daniel Girmai NEGUSIE, Respondent

Decided by Attorney General October 18, 2018

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General

BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i) (2018), I direct the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer this case to me for review of its decision. The Board’s decision in this matter is automatically stayed pending my review. See Matter of Haddam, A.G. Order No. 2380-2001 (Jan. 19, 2001). To assist me in my review, I invite the parties to these proceedings and interested amici to submit briefs on: Whether coercion and duress are relevant to the application of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s persecutor bar. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(2)(A)(i), 1231(b)(3)(B)(i) (2012).

The parties’ briefs shall not exceed 15,000 words and shall be filed on or before November 8, 2018. Interested amici may submit briefs not exceeding 9,000 words on or before November 15, 2018. The parties may submit reply briefs not exceeding 6,000 words on or before November 15, 2018. All filings shall be accompanied by proof of service and shall be submitted electronically to AGCertification@usdoj.gov, and in triplicate to:

United States Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Room 5114 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

All briefs must be both submitted electronically and postmarked on or before the pertinent deadlines. Requests for extensions are disfavored.

**************************************

Here’s the BIA headnote a link to Matter of NEGUSIE, 27 I&N Dec. 347 (BIA 2018):

(1) An applicant who is subject to being barred from establishing eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal based on the persecution of others may claim a duress defense, which is limited in nature.

(2) To meet the minimum threshold requirements of the duress defense to the persecutor bar, an applicant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) he acted under an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to himself or others; (2) he reasonably believed that the threatened harm would be carried out unless he acted or refrained from acting; (3) he had no reasonable opportunity to escape or otherwise frustrate the threat; (4) he did not place himself in a situation in which he knew or reasonably should have known that he would likely be forced to act or refrain from acting; and (5) he knew or reasonably should have known that the harm he inflicted was not greater than the threatened harm to himself or others.

http://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/3930.pdf

********************************************************

Remains to be seen whether Session’s November 16, 2018 “deadline for brief submission” will exceed his job tenure! But, don’t kid yourself: this decision has already been written, maybe with input or assistance from a “restrictionist” organization. And, even if Sessions departs shortly after the midterms, as most expect, I’m sure Trump will be able to find another “restrictionist patsy” to do his “immigration dirty work” for him.

Want to know how ludicrous Sessions’s action is: This case has been pending before the Immigration Court, the BIA, the Supreme Court, and now the Attorney General for nearly 15 years, with no end in sight. After Sessions rules against Negusie, the case will go back to the Court of Appeals, and then, perhaps, back to the Supremes, assuming Mr. Negusie lives long enough to see it through to its conclusion. When it comes to removing folks without Due Process, “time is of the essence” for guys like Sessions; but, when it comes to screwing asylum seekers, “time has no essence” — whatever it takes, no matter how long it takes.

Additionally, this is a great illustration of the absurd dereliction of duty in the Supreme’s so-called “Chevron doctrine.” It’s a purely judge-created device that enables the Supremes to avoid deciding important and potentially controversial legal issues by, in effect, “shuffling them off to Buffalo” (a/k/a the Executive Branch). Once in “Buffalo,” sometimes dysfunctional and often biased Executive Branch agencies can exercise their (often purely imaginary) “expertise” in construing ambiguous statutes (which is, after all, a question of law that constitutes the only function of the Article III Courts). And, does anybody (other than Jeff Sessions) really think that a politico like Jeff Sessions has any real “expertise” in immigration adjudication?

Interestingly, Justice Gorsuch, like his conservative predecessor the late Justice Scalia, has been openly skeptical of the Chevron doctrine. Perhaps ironically, he, along with the outlandish actions of the Administration that appointed him, could ultimately spell the well-deserved end or limitation of “Chevron deference.”

As we say in the business, stay tuned. But, please, please, don’t “hold your breath” on this one!

PWS

10-18-18

🎃🎃🎃

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER? – After 9 Years, The BIA Finally Completes The Supreme’s Remand – Creates A “Limited Duress Defense” To Persecutor Bar, With Judge Malphrus Dissenting – Matter of NEGUSIE, 27 I&N Dec. 347 (BIA 2018)

Matter of NEGUSIE, 27 I&N Dec. 347 (BIA 2018)

Here’s the link:

3930

BIA HEADNOTE:

(1) An applicant who is subject to being barred from establishing eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal based on the persecution of others may claim a duress defense, which is limited in nature.

(2) To meet the minimum threshold requirements of the duress defense to the persecutor bar, an applicant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) he acted under an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to himself or others; (2) he reasonably believed that the threatened harm would be carried out unless he acted or refrained from acting; (3) he had no reasonable opportunity to escape or otherwise frustrate the threat; (4) he did not place himself in a situation in which he knew or reasonably should have known that he would likely be forced to act or refrain from acting; and (5) he knew or reasonably should have known that the harm he inflicted was not greater than the threatened harm to himself or others.

BIA PANEL: APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGES GRANT, GREER, MAPPHRUS

OPINION BY: Judge Edward R. Grant

CONCURRING & DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Garry d. Malphrus

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:

In a decision dated May 31, 2005, an Immigration Judge denied the applicant’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal but granted his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51, at 197, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/708 (1984) (entered into force June 26, 1987; for the United States Apr. 18, 1988) (“Convention Against Torture”). On February 7, 2006, we dismissed the appeals of both the applicant and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).1 This case is now before us on remand pursuant to a decision of the United States Supreme Court in

1 The DHS does not now challenge the applicant’s grant of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture.

347

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 347 (BIA 2018) Interim Decision #3930

Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009). Having reviewed the record and the arguments presented by the parties and amici curiae, we will again dismiss the applicant’s appeal.2

We conclude that duress is relevant in determining whether an alien who assisted or otherwise participated in persecution is prevented by the so-called “persecutor bar” from establishing eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal under sections 101(a)(42), 208(b)(2)(A)(i), and 241(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1231(b)(3)(B)(i) (2012), and for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) and (d)(2) (2018).3 In this decision, we set forth a standard for evaluating claims of duress in this context. Applying that standard to the uncontested findings of fact in the record, we conclude that the applicant has not established that he was under duress when he assisted in the persecution of prisoners who were persecuted under his guard in an Eritrean prison camp.

KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:

The United States Supreme Court remanded this case for us to make an “initial determination of the statutory interpretation question,” Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, 524 (2009), “with respect to whether an alien who

ORDER: The applicant’s appeal is dismissed.

368

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 347 (BIA 2018) Interim Decision #3930

was coerced to assist in persecution is barred from obtaining asylum in the United States,” id. at 525 (Scalia, J., concurring). The remand directed us to interpret the statute anew based on principles of statutory construction, free of our prior assumption that Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981), definitively resolved this question. The majority decision is artfully drafted, but it does not engage in this analysis. Instead, the majority reads a duress exception into the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 (entered into force Oct. 4, 1967; for the United States Nov. 1, 1968) (“Protocol”), and, by extension, the Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (“Refugee Act”), that simply does not exist. And it does so essentially by deferring to international expectations of how the Protocol should be interpreted. I cannot agree with this approach.

******************************************

Wow! Deferring to international interpretations and expert interpretations from the UNHCR that actually give an asylum applicant a very circumscribed break for actions he or she was forced to take. Very “Un-Boardy.” Could actually be “career threatening.” No wonder Judge Malphrus wanted to separate himself from any such rational and reasonable actions in the “Age of Sessions & Trump.”
9 years in the making, during which the DHS position changed several times, is a pretty good argument against “Chevron deference” (a/k/a “task avoidance by life-tenured Article III Judges”). What were Immigration Judges supposed to do during those 9 years?
Odds on whether or how long it will take “Gonzo” to intervene?

PWS

06-29-18

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: