"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.
It was a “full house:” full of talent, energy, skills, and determination to fight for due process for all! Thanks to all who participated from across the nation. This year’s timely focus was on detention and bond.
I was honored to serve on this distinguished and congenial faculty. Kudos to “Dean” Rekha Sharma-Crawford for her leadership in putting everything together and making it happen! (All while winning two TROs against the DHS overreach in “real time.” Nothing like showing “applied practical scholarship” to inspire and motivate a student body!)
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
From Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase:
Hi all: The Supreme Court issued its decision today in Monsalvo-Velazquez v. Bondi, in which our Round Table filed an amicus brief at the request of Petitioner’s counsel.
I’m happy to report that in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Gorsuch (attached), the Court agreed with the position that when the deadline for voluntary departure falls on a weekend or holiday, the period for VD extends to the next business day.
We had explained in our brief that this reading is consistent with long-settled practices in the immigration courts.
Congrats to all, and much thanks to attorneys Collin White and Scott Angstreich of the law firm of Kellogg Hansen for representing us on the brief..
For our new members, this is the fifth time that the Round Table has filed a brief in a winning Supreme Court case. The others are:
Niz-Chavez v. Garland, holding that the INA’s “stop time” rule for cancellation of removal may only be triggered by the filing of an NTA that is a single document, containing all the necessary information (this decision made many thousands eligible for cancellation of removal);
Nasrallah v. Barr, allowing CAT applicants to seek judicial review of factual challenges to a CAT order notwithstanding the limitations created by sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act;
Wilkinson v. Garland, holding that hardship determinations in cancellation B cases are mixed questions of fact and law, and are therefore reviewable by circuit courts; and
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, which held that where the BIA commits error in its decision, a respondent need not first seek reopening by the Board in order to exhaust its remedies before seeking judicial review.
The BIA’s use of wrong standard to deny life-saving relief really, really stinks! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Excerpt:
This Circuit has long recognized the clearly erroneous standard, articulating it memorably as requiring the appellate body to find that the factual findings are “wrong with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.” Cox Enters., Inc. v. News-Journal Corp., 794 F.3d 1259, 1272 n.92 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Parts & Elec. Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Elec. Inc., 866 F.2d 228, 233 (7th Cir. 1988)). Rather than follow this approach, in the case at bar the Board instead treated the immigration judge’s findings like fresh sushi-grade tuna, ready to be cut and served as the BIA wished.
A Helping Hand.jpg Image depicts a child coming to the aid of another in need. Once we have climbed it is essential for the sake of humanity that we help others do the same. It is knowing that we all could use, and have used, a helping hand. Safiyyah Scoggins – PVisions1111 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 White Nationalist Xenophobes have abandoned Traditional Judeo-Christian values in favor of neo-fascism.But, the rest of us should hold true to our “better angels.”
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase writes:
Hi all: Attached is our just-filed amicus brief in support of the Unaccompanied Children Program.
Once again, this was a real team effort. Major thanks to Ashley Tabaddor, for lending her expertise and powerful anecdotes on very short notice. Also thanks to Sue Roy, the eagle-eyed editing of Helen Sichel, and Denise Slavin for your contributions.
We never stand so tall as when we file an amicus brief to help unaccompanied children.
Hon. Jennie Giambastiani U.S. Immigration Judge (retired) Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges PHOTO: Linkedin
The Trump administration is stripping funding for legal representation from tens of thousands of children who are unaccompanied migrants in the United States, a move immigration lawyers warn violates their legal rights and will leave minors vulnerable to abuse.
“Picture yourself thrown into a detention center in a foreign country where you don’t speak the language, where you don’t understand that country’s complex legal system, only to be told that now you must fend for yourself, assert your rights and seek whatever protections that country might offer you,” Jennie Giambastiani, a retired immigration judge, said Tuesday during a call organized by the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights.
“Now picture yourself as a child in that situation,” she added.
Government-funded attorneys changed that dynamic, Giambastiani said, because they worked hard “to make sure that the children understood the proceedings and could present their claims in court.” Most unaccompanied children can’t afford to hire their own legal representation.
Without those lawyers, Giambastiani said separately, the immigration courts would be thrown into “chaos”: “The judge won’t have any sense that this child understands why [they’re] there in court.”
Thanks for speaking out for American justice, my friend and colleague! Expect more soon from our Round Table ⚔️🛡️ on this outrageous breach of due process, good government, and common sense!
Kansas City folks! It’s that time! The Annual Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College convenes in just over a month. Come play a witness and help train the next class of fearless immigration trial lawyers! Share with your networks please! 🙏🏽
*******************************
See you in Kansas City in April, along with my wonderful faculty friends and colleagues at the Annual Immigraton Court Trial Advocacy College. Never has effective advocacy been more important!
Many thanks to our wonderful pro bono friends at Akin Gump!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round TableLeading the charge for due process! Adina Appelbaum Director, Immigration Impact Lab Amica Center for Immigrant Rights Charter Member, NDPA PHOTO: “30 Under 30” from Forbes
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”St. Valentine’s Day Massacre Wall Creative Commons 2.0
Reprinted with permission:
Statement from 7 terminated Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (ACIJs):
*Please note – pronouns are nonbinary below only to maintain anonymity.
The terminated ACIJs are 5 females and 2 males, all age 41 or older. 2 are military veterans. 2 are racial minorities. Together, the 7 terminated ACIJs have over 105 years of public service that ended abruptly with an email sent Friday afternoon, Valentine’s Day.
1. Facts related to termination:
– Friday afternoon we all received by e-mail a PDF letter terminating us with no notice and no cause for the termination.
2. Summary of our experience: Combined, the 7 ACIJs led 18 immigration courts, and supervised approximately 135 immigration judges and 418 support staff. One was working on opening a new immigration court with 4 judges. Their termination leaves roughly 25% of the nation’s immigration courts without leadership or additional judges to preside while the immigration case backlog grows to over 3.6 million cases.
– At least one ACIJ was sent the termination email during the middle of a merits hearing (asylum case) over which they were presiding.
– 4 of the ACIJs were backups for each other’s courts, so at least 4 courts are without any clear leadership.
Collectively, we are devastated at the loss of our ability to continue in our jobs serving the public and serving EOIR’s mission to “adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws.”
*****************
Rather than a “model of due process and fundamental fairness,” under this Administration EOIR is becoming a “parody of justice.” Obviously, getting rid of high-performing, experienced judges who were also in leadership positions, particularly in the face of a backlog approaching 4 million cases, has nothing to do with “efficiency” and everything to do with weaponization of the Immigration Courts against individuals seeking to vindicate their legal rights under our laws and our Constitution!
Thanks to this group for your service, and Due Process Forever!
Dree Collopy, Esquire NDPA Superhero PHOTO: Washington College of Law
Dree writes:
Greetings Family and Friends,
I hope that you are all doing well. I am writing to share a personal update. After nearly two decades in private practice and owning and operating my own firm, I have sold my ownership interest in my firm, Benach Collopy, to my wonderful partner Ava Benach, who remains a close friend.
Selling my ownership of the firm I worked so hard to build was a difficult decision that has been about two years in the making, and I was sad to leave my colleagues and clients. However, given the relentless attack on refugees and asylum seekers in this country and around the world, I decided that it was time to transition from “on the ground” work and the arduous administrative tasks of running a law firm to bigger picture legal strategy and impact work. Now more than ever, people seeking protection in the United States need zealous, passionate advocates, who I am excited to train, and smarter, creative legal arguments and policy strategies that I am excited to help develop.
So what am I up to now? I am currently teaching Asylum and Refugee Law at American University Washington College of Law and have joined their renowned program on human rights and humanitarian law. I am also continuing my scholarship on U.S. asylum and refugee law and policy, and finally have more time to devote to my book, which helps other lawyers more effectively represent asylum seekers.
As a final update, I have also joined Grossman Young & Hammond, an internationally renowned immigration firm run by my close friend and long-time colleague in the immigration field, Sandra Grossman. As Of Counsel at GYH, I continue to develop strategy in complex cases, assist immigrant and refugee rights organizations with their advocacy efforts, and train other lawyers around the country in an effort to build and strengthen our “due process army.” For more on this, see GYH’s press release here. Please continue to send anyone in need of top notch immigration lawyering my way.
Moving forward, you may reach me at collopy@american.eduor dcollopy@grossmanyoung.com, here at my Gmail, or on my cell phone at 515-988-1044. And of course, if you’re interested in keeping up with me and the work I’m doing, please connect with me on LinkedIn and give me and GYH a follow on social media.
I look forward to being in touch!
Dree
******************
Many congrats, Dree, to you, Ava, Sandra, Washington College of Law, and all involved! Good luck in your new career challenges!
St. Valentine’s Day Massacre Wall Creative Commons 2.0
Here’s former Judge Kerry Doyle’s account of her recent firing by EOIR, as originally posted on LinkedIn. Notably, Judge Doyle is a widely-respected immigration expert, a “total pro,” with decades of professional experience, including both ICE and the private sector. In other words, she is exactly the kind of fair, “practical scholar” judge EOIR needs to carry out its real, even if disgracefully abandoned, mission of guaranteeing due process and fundamental fairness for all!
Happy Saturday! I truly hope all of you were able to spend some time with someone you love 💕 yesterday on Valentine’s Day—two legged or four 😉. Sadly, my day was a little more complicated. I was, via email, terminated by the Acting Director of EOIR as an immigration judge yesterday, February 14, 2025.
I had not publicly posted that I had started working as an IJ in the hope of keeping my head down and just getting to work and avoiding having a bullseye on me. Unfortunately, I was unable to avoid the political pink slip.
This firing occurred despite the fact that the Immigration Court currently has in the neighborhood of 3.5 MILLION pending cases and DOJ is asking Congress for more money to hire more people at EOIR! (Hint: don’t fire the people you already have!). This firing occurred despite the fact that among my peers in my court, I had the longest and most extensive experience in immigration law and had served both as a defense counsel representing immigrants, but also as the top immigration prosecutor as PLA with ICE. I therefore had a unique perspective and experience that I could bring to my work as an immigration judge.
Sadly, DOJ cancelled our training that was to take place Feb. 10-14 (irony!) for me and the others hired late last year or early this year in my “class.” They never rescheduled it and then fired me and the rest of the new class yesterday.A number of Assistant Chief Immigration Judges were also fired. I can’t say I was surprised this happened. I was expecting it, especially when I showed up in the notorious “DHS Watchlist” late last year.
Significant time and resources went into hiring all of us and the group had a diverse background including a number of former OPLA prosecutors, but what we all had in common is that we were hired—through a neutral system I will point out—during the Biden Administration. This firing was political.
Needless to say, I’m looking for a new opportunity so let me know if you have any tips!Thanks to everyone. We will persist. What you do matters!
Her urgent message to the NDPA is truer now than ever: “What you do matters!”
Thank you for your service to our nation and to our justice system, Judge Doyle! 🇺🇸👍🏼🎖️⚖️🗽
“Goin to Kansas City, Kansas City here I come!” Be there, or be square! Fats Domino (1928-2017) R&B, R&R, Pianist & Singer Circa 1980 PHOTO: Creative Commons. Here’s the registration link:
Equal Justice FROM: United Nations, Creative Commons License
Got this from a former student last week:
Happy New Year! Just wanted to share a victory with you, I had my first bond hearing today and I got it granted over ICE objections! I was channeling you the whole time!
Many thanks to the Round Table’s “Rapid Response Team” led by retired Judges “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase and Dana Leigh Marks for spearheading this response on very short notice!
January 15, 2025
We are former Immigration Judges and former Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of
Immigration Appeals. Members of our group were appointed to the bench and served under
different administrations of both parties over the past four decades. Drawing on our many years
of collective experience, we are intimately familiar with the workings, history, and development
of the immigration court from the 1980s up to present.
The Laken Riley Act presently before the Senate contains provisions for mandatory detention of
non-citizens charged with certain crimes. We have been asked in the past to weigh in as amici in
federal litigation on the impact of detention on the working of the Immigration Court system. We
would like to share our expert views on the topic given its application to the Laken Riley Act.
In 2020, we served as amici in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842 (2d Cir. 2020). Our full brief is attached, and we
summarize some of the points we made regarding detention below.
First, it is important to realize that non-citizen respondents in removal proceedings are not
afforded the rights enjoyed by defendants in criminal proceedings. In Immigration Court, there
are no limitations on the Government’s ability to detain respondents, and no right to a court
appointed attorney. For those non-citizens who are eligible for bond hearings, there is no
consideration of the respondent’s financial circumstances as a factor in setting the bond amount. 1
Furthermore, there is no Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and a very limited right to seek
judicial review.
Second, when we discussed in our 2020 brief the strain detention places on an already
overburdened Immigration Court system, we cited a backlog of under one million cases. Today,
1
An exception exists only within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
which requires consideration of financial ability to pay a bond. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976
(9th Cir. 2017).
the backlog has grown to 3.6 million, an increase of more than 350 percent. Thus, our 2
previously stated concerns about the impact of more cases in which too few judges hear cases
involving highly complex legal issues, and in which most hearings require interpreters, have
become far more urgent. We also note an increase in the number of non-citizen respondents in
Immigration Court who are unrepresented by counsel. As we stated in our brief, detention creates
a significant barrier to obtaining counsel, with detained respondents far more likely to be
unrepresented. 3
Based on our many years of experience on the bench, the increase in the number of cases on
detained dockets would greatly hamper any attempt to decrease the presently staggering case
backlog. As noted, the need for interpreters can easily double the length of hearings, and increase
the chance of translation errors in cases in which nuance can be determinative. Furthermore, the
growing number of pro se respondents, many of whom have no experience with or understanding
of how legal processes work, or of what is required of them to prevail in their claims for relief,
creates additional burdens on Immigration Judges charged with ensuring that each respondent
receives a fair hearing, including the right to present all applications for relief.
Immigration Judges are therefore required to carefully explain the process, through an
interpreter, to unrepresented respondents, whose detention greatly hampers their ability to defend
themselves by providing them with very limited ability to seek legal guidance, conduct research,
or gather documents or witnesses.
Our many decades of experience has also taught us the benefits of allowing judges to assess on a
case-by-case basis the danger posed to society and the likelihood that the individual will appear
for future hearings.
As we stated in our attached brief:
Fifty years ago, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) stated that “[i]n our system of
ordered liberty, the freedom of the individual is considered precious. No deportable [non-
citizen] should be deprived of his liberty pending execution of the deportation order
unless there are compelling reasons and every effort should be made to keep the period of
any necessary detention to a minimum.” Matter of Kwun, 13 I. & N. Dec. 457, 464 (BIA
1969).
2
See Congressional Research Service, Immigration Courts: Decline in New Cases at the End of FY2024
(Nov. 26, 2024) (available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12463) at 1 (stating that
the Immigration Court backlog “exceeded 1 million for the first time in 2019…and was approximately 3.6
million at the end of FY2024.”).
3
This is in part due to the fact that detention centers are often located far from cities with a sufficient
number of immigration lawyers; representing a detailed client from hundreds of miles is often untenable.
This goal is best accomplished by allowing experienced Immigration Judges to reach case-by-
case determinations regarding the need for detention.
We hope that Senators will take the above considerations into account in their deliberations
regarding the Laken Riley Act.
For additional information, contact Hon. Eliza C. Klein, Immigration Judge, Miami, Boston,
Chicago, 1994-2015; Senior Immigration Judge, Chicago, 2019-2023, at elizakl@gmail.com.
