"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.
Cinder F. Rella Direct Sharma-Crawford Trial College Johnson County Community College May 5, 2023Trial College Faculty Celebrates Another Day of Teaching Extraordinary Lawyers To Be Strong, Smart, Fearless! May 5, 2023Trial College Grads Produce Happy Endings and Grateful Clients!After just three days of intensive study and engagement at the Sharma Crawford Trial College, immigration litigators actually look and feel different!
******************************
Such an honor and pleasure to be a part of this distinguished and dedicated group.
To quote my faculty colleague Sarah Owings, “The world and the work are less lonely knowing you are all out there!” I think everyone else feels the same way, Sarah, my friend!
Sarah Owings, Esquire Partner Owings MacNorlin Atlanta, GA PHOTO: Firm
Four Central American girls at a tent for U.S. asylum seekers in Reynosa, Mexico. For years now the U.S. has forced asylum applicants to wait in Mexico, often for years and in dangerous conditions. (Shutterstock)
Retire This Dehumanizing Language About Immigrants
Human beings fleeing persecution are not a “flood” or “surge.” And it’s not “illegal” when they cross the border to seek asylum.
Last year, my client Susan called me to discuss her immigration case.
During our conversation she referenced the news that immigrants were being bused from the southern border to cities in the North, often under false promises, only to be left stranded in an unknown city.
In confusion and fear, Susan asked me: “Why do they hate us so much?”
While I couldn’t answer Susan’s question, her underlying concern highlights a startling escalation of public aggression against migrants over the past year.
There seems to be a growing “us” versus “them” mentality towards immigrants. This divisive language serves no purpose other than to divide our country, undermine the legal right to seek asylum in the United States, and cultivate a fear of the most vulnerable.
A clear example is showcased in recent media coverage of northbound migration across the U.S.-Mexico border. Many outlets describe recent migration through the Americas as a “flood,” “influx,” “wave,” or “surge”— language that reinforces the notion that migration is akin to an imminent, uncontrollable, and destructive natural disaster.
Woven into this framing is the near-constant use of the term “illegal” or “unlawful” to describe unauthorized crossings. As an advocate for immigrant survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, and trafficking, I’m alarmed by the use of this language to describe a migrant’s attempt to survive.
Moreover, it’s often simply incorrect. A noncitizen who has a well-founded fear of persecution in the country from which they’ve fled has a legal right — protected under both U.S. and international law — to enter the United States to seek asylum.
When mainstream media wield the term “illegal” as though it were synonymous with “unauthorized,” they misinform readers and falsely paint asylum seekers as criminals.
Worse still, they encourage politicians who call immigrants themselves “illegals,” a deeply dehumanizing term. And the more dehumanizing language we use, the more likely it is that we will see immigrants as the “other” to justify cruel immigration policies.
We must retire the use of this inflammatory rhetoric, which distracts from real solutions that would actually serve survivors arriving at our borders.
Migrants expelled back to their home countries are at grave risk of severe harm or death at the hands of their persecutors. Those forced to remain in Mexico as they await entry to the United States are increasingly vulnerable to organized crime or abusive and dangerous conditions in detention.
The words we use in everyday discourse mean something — they can spell out life or death for those among us who are most vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Now more than ever, I’d urge the public and the media to retire the use of sensationalizing, stigmatizing, and misleading imagery and rhetoric surrounding immigration.
Now is the time to apply accuracy and humanity in our depictions of migrants. Let’s not repeat the errors of our past.
***********************
Thanks for speaking up, MDP!
Dehumanization of the “other” has a long ugly history in the U.S., of course going back to enslaved African Americans, Native Americans, and the Chinese Exclusion Laws.
We also see that dehumanizing language has extended from asylum seekers and other migrants to the LGBTQ+ community, Asian Americans, advocates for social justice, homelessness, handicaps, economic disadvantages, women, government officials, political opponents, etc.
Dehydration is a nasty way to die! Théodore Géricault Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 France-003341B – Raft of the Medusa (16237617902).jpg Copy [[File:France-003341B – Raft of the Medusa (16237617902).jpg|France-003341B_-_Raft_of_the_Medusa_ PHOTO: Dennis Jarvis, Halifax Nova ScotiaJasmine Garsd NPR Criminal Justice Reporter PHOTO: Linkedin
In some parts of this new route they are exploring, Arellano and Cordero are already leaving bottles of fresh water in bushy areas, where people may be taking refuge from the sun.
They check to see if anyone drank from them.
Arellano picks up the bottle. “Slashed”, she sighs.
This is where Border Kindness runs into one of the biggest hurdles in drawing a new map: not climate, not geography, but people. Occasionally, when they leave these bottles of water, they return to find them destroyed.
They don’t know who is doing it – but there’s plenty of people out here who disapprove of the work they do.
“If they recognize what the water is for… they’ll slash it. In hopes people die I guess?” Arellano says.
As they move along, Arellano and Cordero find about a dozen destroyed water bottles at various locations. All mangled. They replace them.
Before calling it a day, they drive up to one last spot where a migrant was found dead from dehydration just a few months ago.
In the nearby bushes, there’s the usual: shoes, socks, also, a small child’s pink winter glove, and a tiny winter jacket. It’s baby blue and filled with caked mud. Arellano inspects its tags. “4-T”, she reads out loud. It belonged to a 4-year-old child.
They walk over to check on the water bottle they left here a few days ago, to see if anyone was able to drink.
But it, too, has been slashed open.
******************************
Read and listen to the complete report at the link.
A sad illustration of one of my sayings: “We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!”
“Fear & Loathing” Inept, disingenuous performances on asylum by the White House, DHS, & DOJ have left the Biden Administration grasping at straws and spreading vile nativist myths about asylum seekers at the border. PHOTO: Creative Commons
Deterrence and increased enforcement have proven to be failed approaches that do not change the multiple factors that force so many people to flee their countries and only result in pushing people into more dangerous routes that allow criminal organizations to thrive, resulting in the smuggling, trafficking, extortion, and kidnapping of migrants and others.
After more than two years of bumbling around, in the process squandering their access to the ideas and problem-solving skills of an un-precedented “brain trust” of immigration experts, the Biden Administration appears to be in “full panic mode” as the inevitable lifting of the Title 42 charade slowly approaches. Notably, a Federal Court ordered the Administration to make good on its (already delayed) promise to end Title 42 back in November 2022. But, the Supremes unethically blocked that order — granting a stay that NO ACTUAL PARTY to the litigation requested, in a simply mind-boggling exercise of politicized, unconstitutional interference with the Executive.
Instead of using the time to 1) work with NGOs, 2) hire and train more expert asylum officers, 3) replace the BIA and anti-asylum Immigration Judges with qualified human rights/due process experts, and 4) drastically ramp up the refugee admission system outside the U.S. (not substituting an inadequate and “jury rigged” numerically limited “parole” program for legal refugee and asylum admissions), the Administration frittered away the opportunity with obstructionist/restrictionist nonsense. Now, they are “running scared” from desperate refugees merely seeking to exercise their legal rights that have been illegally and immorally denied to them for years — by successive Administrations.
Pooja Asnani reports from Sanctuary For Families NY:
Hi all,
I wanted to share a recent asylum grant won by my colleagues, Deirdre Stradone, Amalia Chiapperino, and Kelly Becker-Smith, before IJ McKee at the NYC immigration court.
Client is Honduran Garifuna woman who survived DV and gang violence, and, importantly for the grant of asylum, forced sterilization. Below is a quick summary of the case, and I’m highlighting this asylum grant because our team, specifically Deirdre, has been seeing more and more cases of forced sterilization among Central American women.
Respondent is a forty-five-year-old Honduran Garifuna woman who has been the victim of forced sterilization, severe verbal, physical, and sexual violence, robbery and death threats by gang members, and intentional deprivation of law enforcement assistance and medical attention due to her race and gender. Overwhelming evidence affirms the horrific practice of forced sterilization against Garifuna women, as well as the high levels of domestic and gang violence in Honduras that take place with impunity. The evidence shows that government authorities largely fail to respond to complaints of abuse, or when they do respond, fail to do so effectively.
Deirdre has been collaborating with the Mt. Sinai Human Rights program to study the forced sterilization of Central American women, a topic she had encountered over and over again in her asylum cases, with the researchers agreeing that this particular violation of human rights is likely more common than is being research and reported. Deirdre has found several reports and studies conducted regarding indigenous, mainly Garifuna, women living with HIV who have been victims of this practice. As you all probably know, and stemming from the response to China’s one-child policy, forced sterilization is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) as “per se persecution on account of political opinion.”
I wanted to share this because we’re realizing that that it may be a more wide-spread practice than we initially thought, and often times, clients don’t even realized they have been sterilized when they come to us. We have been asking specific questions about this in our intakes, and often have been sending our clients to get a medical evaluation to determine whether they have been sterilized. Unfortunately, we have had a several clients discover in the course of our representation that they had been sterilized without their consent, and we believe that many other women may have experienced this without realizing.
While we have worked on several cases with similar facts, but interestingly, this is the first asylum case we have had were the IJ (McKee) granted specifically based on the forced sterilization claim (political opinion), and not on the ARCG DV claim.
Our team at Sanctuary is working to put together a training to help issue-spot, discuss common fact patterns, and how to prepare and brief these cases; stay tuned for more details.
CC’ing the team who worked on this case, including Deirdre, if folks have questions.
Thanks,
Pooja
Deirdre Stradone Attorney Sanctuary for Families NYKelly Becker-Smith Attorney Sanctuary for Families NYAmalia Chiapperino Sanctuary for Families NY
********************
Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:
Christina Brown writes: “I wanted to share the attached decision in case it is helpful to others. IJ Burgie granted the asylum claim of an indigenous Guatemalan applicant finding past persecution based on severe economic deprivation (DHS failed to rebut). She also granted based on a pattern and practice of severe economic persecution of indigenous Guatemalans.”
Many congrats and much appreciation to all involved!
Even as the Biden Administration and GOP nativists push their “big myth” that most seeking asylum at the Southern Border are “mere economic migrants” not “true refugees,” these results from those fortunate enough to have expert lawyers, fair Immigration Judges, and reasonable time to prepare, document, and present continue to show the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the racially-biased restrictionist claims. Indeed, to get to the “any reason to deny” nonsense, which also is often mis-employed by the BIA, one has to intentionally ignore or misconstrue both the real country conditions in the Northern Triangle and the inclusive “at least one central reason” mixed motive language of the INA.
These are NOT “one offs!”No, they are actually recurring situations! A properly functioning, fair, expert BIA, committed to a correct and generous interpretation of asylum laws, would have incorporated these and other recurring “grant” situations into a series of binding precedents. These, in turn, would allow lawyers, Asylum Officers, IJs, and ACCs to recognize and prioritize these cases for “fast track grants.”
That, in turn, would enable many asylum applicants to be timely admitted in legal asylum status, work authorized, and on the way to green cards and naturalization. Significantly, it would also avoid the largely self-created, self-aggravated, ever-growing EOIR backlogs that seem to “drive” the “haste makes waste,” sloppy, “any reason to deny” decision-making that still exists throughout our broken and biased asylum system.
The REAL problem here its that meritorious cases like or similar to these that require expert recognition, proper preparation and documentation, and officials committed to “protection not rejection,” are likely to be summarily rejected and wrongfully pushed back across the border by the “Biden/Miller Lite” procedures and toxic official attitudes toward asylum now being promoted by both the Administration and the GOP.
It’s disturbingly clear that the needed positive changes in the immigration legal system are NOT “coming from the top” in the Biden Administration. Consequently, in addition to recruiting, training, and mentoring ever more members of the NDPA (including non-attorney accredited representatives), to hold the system accountable, it is ESSENTIAL that we get more NDPA “practical experts” on the Immigration Bench to spread and force due process, fundamental fairness, and best interpretations/practices on a resistant system from the “retail level” — the “grass roots” if you will.
That requires that NDPA experts with the qualifications apply for Immigration Judge vacancies en masse! You can’t be selected if you don’t apply! And, without better Federal Judges at all levels not only will injustice continue to prevail for immigrants, but our entire democracy will be imperiled! Better judges for a better America!
Yes, as I have acknowledged in prior posts, EOIR can be a tough place to work. But, human lives and the future of our democracy depend on our changing the system, from “the bottom up” if that’s the only way. This system is too important, with too much at stake, to be left to the whims and false agendas of tone-deaf politicos and inept, “go along to get along” bureaucrats!
Injustice Public Realm Dems spend lots of time whining about the destruction of the Federal Judiciary by GOP right-wing extremists. However, after two years in charge, they have done little to bring due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial expertise to America’s worst courts — the Immigration Courts — which they totally control!
The 5th Circuit didn’t mince any words in its latest (inexplicably) unpublished, 24-page takedown of EOIR’s ridiculous “judicial” failure with lives at stake!
Based on all of the evidence as a whole, and in light of the applicable caselaw, Reyes-Hoyes has made a compelling case of persecution. Nevertheless, we find a remand is necessary because the BIA did not make a determination as to Reyes-Hoyes’s credibility. The BIA did not mention credibility in its decision or express any doubts about the truth of Reyes- Hoyes’s testimony. The IJ did express some doubts about Reyes-Hoyes’s credibility, although he did not explicitly find her uncredible and ultimately stated he was not denying relief “based on a lack of sufficiency of proof.” However, the BIA did not adopt the IJ’s decision and thus did not incorporate any of the doubts the IJ had. “Generally speaking, a court of appeals should remand a case to an agency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands.” I.N.S. v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002). If Reyes-Hoyes is credible, she has shown persecution, but the credibility determination must be made by the factfinder, not by this court on appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Avelar-Olivia v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 767 (5th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, the decision of the BIA is vacated in part, and we remand to the BIA for a determination on credibility.
. . . .
In sum, we conclude that, if Reyes-Hoyes is credible, the record compels the conclusion that Reyes-Hoyes suffered harm rising to the level of past persecution, but we remand for the BIA to consider her credibility in the first instance. We also conclude that the record compels the conclusion that safe internal relocation to parts of Guatemala—Mesata and Raul—was not possible. Additionally, we hold that the BIA procedurally erred in the remainder of its analysis concerning whether internal location was reasonable and whether Reyes-Hoyes had shown state action by not meaningfully considering the relevant substantial evidence.
. . . .
**************************
Here is my immediate reaction when Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis sent me the decison:
Wow! This is an EOIR/OIL error fest — replete with misrepresentations and mischaracterizations! Totally sloppy work! Why won’t they publish this? It’s a perfect example of how Garland has failed to get the job done!
And, here’s the reaction from my friend and Round Table Colleague “Sir Jeffrey Eagle Eyes” Chase:
24 pages; very detailed analysis of recurring asylum issues. Should certainly have been published.
BTW, please note footnote 9, an example of the ongoing problem with the government’s online regs continuing to list the enjoined “death to asylum” regs that the previous administration tried to push through. The Fifth Circuit continues to believe that the internal relocation reg was amended effective January 19, 2021. Have cases been decided based on this erroneous belief?
Lest you doubt the “complete FUBARness” of EOIR, check these out:
Worst of all the small and mid-sized agencies ranked;
While the “curve” for “subagencies” has gone up since 2007, EOIR’s score has cratered, plunging dramatically during the Trump years;
EOIR ranked at or near the bottom on key metrics, including, significantly, “leadership style” (some of the “credit” for this abysmal score should go to DOJ, which has failed to provide dynamic, due-process-oriented leadership over the last six years);
GAO study just cited EOIR for a number of management deficiencies including “blowing off” “our [GAO’s] 2017 recommendation to develop a strategic workforce plan to address current and future staffing needs, EOIR hasn’t done so—even though it had a significant and growing backlog of 1.8 million pending cases at the start of FY 2023, more than triple the number that it had in FY 2017.”
The NAIJ continues to raise technology and health and safety defects with EOIR “management;”
Notably, during this period of abject failure, EOIR has found time and resources to waste (and potential “goodwill” to squander) on unneeded nonsense like “IJ Dashboards,” “production quotas,” “expedited dockets,” more layers of bloated headquarters bureaucracy, and, perhaps the biggest boondoggle of all, a totally absurd and duplicative “Office of Policy” for an agency that has demonstrated a disturbing inability to carry out its “core function:” Providing Due Process for all through fair, timely, expert, correct adjudications!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up” — As Dems founder in their commitment to restore justice, could new Immigration Judges from the NDPA — unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices — get this poor little fella back on his feet and improve the culture and atmosphere at the “retail level” of EOIR, even in the face of indifference and incompetence from those in charge? Lives and futures — perhaps the future of our democracy — are at stake!
What we really need is a “lean, not mean, due process machine” @ EOIR. Why can’t the Dems deliver? That’s the age-old question among human rights experts!
Human Rights First Welcomes Resettlement, Condemns Bars to Asylum Seekers
WASHINGTON – Human Rights First welcomes today’s announcement of the Biden administration’s plans to expand refugee resettlement and family reunification parole in the Americas while reiterating the organization’s call for the administration to abandon its planned asylum ban and the conduct of fast-track credible fear interviews in Border Patrol custody.
“The Biden administration is rightly expanding refugee resettlement from the Americas, an overdue step towards addressing a long-standing gap for people in need of international protection,” said Senior Director of Refugee Protection Eleanor Acer. “This initiative should swiftly bring refugees to safety and not be used to reduce the resettlement of refugees from other regions. The Biden administration should focus on measures like increasing refugee resettlement and regular pathways and abandon its plan to impose an asylum ban that would be a legal, moral, and political mistake.”
In today’s announcement, the Biden administration confirmed its plans to implement its proposed ban on asylum, which would violate U.S. and international refugee law and has sparked widespread opposition from faith leaders, civil rights organizations, unions, and many Members of Congress. People seeking asylum at United States borders will be subjected to fast-track credible fear interviews while in Border Patrol custody and barred under the asylum ban, fueling wrongful deportations to persecution and torture.
“The Biden administration rightly ended and should not resurrect Trump-era policies that conduct credible fear interviews in Border Patrol custody where access to legal counsel is restricted,” Acer said. “This due process disaster, along with the imposition of the planned asylum ban, will be a sham process for deporting refugees who qualify for asylum. Instead of implementing policies that punish people seeking asylum, the United States should lead in upholding refugee protections and human rights.”
Human Rights First and other groups have long urged the U.S. government to step up refugee resettlement from the Americas and offer safe pathways for migration. We recommend the Biden administration focus on transformational steps like increasing refugee resettlement and regular pathways and maximizing asylum capacity at ports of entry rather than pursuing its misguided plan to impose a new bar on asylum.
Today’s announcements are part of the Biden administration’s plans to address regional migration and initiate punitive policies as the use of the Title 42 public health order ends on May 11. Human Rights First has repeatedly documented human rights abuses inflicted by the Title 42 policy, including over 13,000 attacks against migrants and asylum seekers blocked in or expelled to Mexico under Title 42 during the Biden administration. The organization has also repeatedlydetailed the harms and violations of law that would be caused by the Biden administration’s proposed ban on asylum.
To me, the DHS/DOS statement (referenced by HRF) sounds like folks who expect to fail, want to “tamp down” expectations, and intend to blame the victims (asylum seekers and their advocates) and Congress for their (likely) failure.
Almost everybody agrees that reforms in our immigration system are overdue. But, there is no agreement whatsoever in Congress on what those reforms should be, as shown by the absolutely insanely “bonkers” proposal from the House GOP which seeks to make everything infinitely worse!
So, we’re not going to get the needed expansions and simplification of our legal immigration system, including more generous treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, in the foreseeable future. That’s not a surprise! After two plus years in office, the Biden Administration should have foreseen the obvious and come up with ways to make the current law work.
As almost any expert will tell you, our existing legal asylum system can be made to work in a fair, timely, and reasonable manner at the borders. But, that’s not going to happen with the current personal, poor leadership, bad attitudes, lousy precedents, and a badly failed Immigration Court system.
A fair, functional, properly run asylum system, in conjunction with a robust realistic overseas refugee program, will result in more individuals being admitted into the U.S. as legal immigrants through the refugee and asylum processes. That’s how they are supposed to work (but generally have not) as key components of our legal immigration system.
It’s also a fulfillment of our important international obligations that we intentionally took on after our questionable performance on Jews fleeing Europe just prior to, and even during, WWII. While we can absorb, even need, more legal immigrants, Administrations don’t want to admit and deal with the obvious. Forced refugee migrations aren’t going to disappear any time in the foreseeable future, much as politicos of both parties might want them to!
Yes, these are legacies of the Trump Administration, and, to a lesser extent, the Obama Administration. But, one of the reasons why the Biden Administration is in office is to make things work, not just to whine and wring their hands.
Sure, the Trump Administration undermined the rule of law (and, I might add, largely got away with it). But, that’s no excuse for Biden and Harris not to have listened to experts (like, for example, Eleanor Acer), replaced personnel at DHS and DOJ with “practical experts” who can get the job done, and established at least a working operational framework for a successful, orderly, refugee and asylum admission system. Over-relying on coercive and inhumane detention, denial-oriented decision-making, bogus bars to asylum, criminal prosecutions, threats, and a dysfunctional Immigration Court system are NOT that framework.
Of course the Administration’s proposals to increase refugee admissions, reprogram resources, and develop a better resettlement program for refugees and asylees in the U.S. are good ideas. But, they are basically “no brainers” that HRF and other experts urged even before “day one” of this Administration. They should be in place and operating by now! We’ll see how much due process and fairness this Administration can actually deliver, or whether their proposed solutions devolve into yet another “uber-enforcement fueled” fiasco with the most vulnerable humans as the victims!
Every day, thousands of people flee their homes in search of a better life for their families. Global Ministries and the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) provide support for refugees and migrants around the world, seeking to fulfill the biblical mandate to “love thy neighbor” and “welcome the stranger.”
Tiny mustard seeds, as Jesus described in his parable, have a potential to grow into something big or pervasive that spreads throughout a field. Our hope is that by learning more about migrants in local communities and addressing their needs through these grants, the “seed” of welcoming strangers might be planted in new ways in congregations around the country.
WHAT IS THE MUSTARD SEED MIGRATION PROGRAM?
The Mustard Seed Migration Grant program is designed to encourage local United Methodist churches to engage in ministry to migrants in their midst. UMCOR will award grants of $2,000 USD to up to 100 United Methodist local churches to engage in new, one-time community-based service projects and ministries focused on migrants and refugees.
The goal of this program is to nurture a deeper understanding and care for the most vulnerable in our communities. We also encourage participating congregations to think about what they might do on a long-term basis, how they might get involved in advocacy to address systemic injustices present in immigration policy or consider how they might more completely live into a new understanding of church as the kingdom of God, actively engaged in caring for the most vulnerable in the community.
2023 APPLICATIONS ARE OPEN
Completed applications will be evaluated on an ongoing basis. Though the final deadline is October 1, 2023, we encourage churches to submit their applications as soon as possible, since awards will be given on a first-come first-served basis. Applicants will be notified within four weeks of the application submission date.
Applications must be signed by the church’s senior pastor and lay leader. Submit a completed, signed application via email to mustardseed@umcor.org.
DOWNLOAD THE 2023 MUSTARD SEED GRANT APPLICATION
Only local United Methodist churches are eligible for this grant. Churches that have not participated previously in this program will be given priority. View detailed program criteria, project examples and applications instructions here:
Project examples
Some examples of Mustard Seed Migration Grant projects might include, but are not limited to, the following.
Providing food or nonfood items for basic needs
Supporting school enrollment through parent outreach or purchase of school supplies
Equipping children with musical or sports equipment to facilitate extracurricular involvement
Offering English, financial literacy or civics classes for adult learners or tutoring for students
Supplying families with cash vouchers for emergency rent, utilities or transportation assistance
Facilitating access to internet through provision of cell phones, laptops or internet access
Distributing bicycles for transportation assistance
Assisting a newly arrived refugee family in setting up their new apartment
Program criteria
Application instructions
Final submission deadline:
Completed applications will be evaluated on an ongoing basis, within four weeks of submission. Though the final deadline is October 1, 2023, we encourage churches to submit their applications as soon as possible, since awards will be given on a first-come first-served basis.
Maximum grant amount: $2,000 USD
For more information or to submit a completed application, please contact: mustardseed@umcor.org.
See the list of 2022 Mustard Seed Migration Grant recipients here.
*******************
Many thanks to Debi Sanders for alerting me to this! UMCOR has done some really great humanitarian/social justice work!
Excited to announce that I will be part of the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) National Task Force on Hispanic Law Faculty and Deans! I am honored to be included in a group of Latine law professor giants, whom I have long admired. I look forward to continuing working on a personal passion of mine, which is diversifying the legal profession and legal academia. ¡Adelante!
The Hispanic National Bar Association Launches New Task Force on
Law Faculty and Deans
Washington, DC – The Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) announces the launch of the first-of-its-kind National Task Force on Hispanic Law Faculty and Deans, aimed at addressing the alarming lack of Hispanic/Latino representation among U.S. law school professors and administrators (including deans), as well as the shortage of professional development resources specifically for Hispanic/Latino professors, deans, and other administrators already in the legal academy.
According to the most recent ABA Profile of the Legal Profession, only 5.8% of lawyers in the U.S. are Hispanic/Latino, even though we constitute over 19% of the general population. The shortage of Hispanic/Latino lawyers across the nation mirrors the paucity of Hispanics in legal academia. Only 9 of the almost 200 deans of ABA-accredited law schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia are Hispanic/Latino. Estimates have the percentage of full-time Hispanic/Latino law professors at only 5%.
Hispanic/Latino law professors and law school deans are leaders of the profession and play seminal roles in educating future generations of lawyers and law-related professionals. Legal educators are visible role models and mentors to young people aspiring to careers in law. In addition, Hispanic/Latino legal academics – like other legal academics – frequently are tapped for senior government appointments, judgeships, and other key roles in our democracy. The urgency of this initiative is heightened further by the U.S. Supreme Court’s looming affirmative action decision, which threatens to make the shortage of Hispanic/Latino law students, lawyers, and legal academics even worse.
HNBA President Mariana Bravo has appointed as Co-Chairs of the Task Force Raquel M. Matas and Anthony E. Varona. Raquel Matas is the former Associate Dean for Administration at the University of Miami School of Law and has served as HNBA’s National Law School Liaison. Anthony E. Varona is Dean and Professor at Seattle University School of Law, the first law school dean of Hispanic/Latino heritage of any law school in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Varona was the first Hispanic/Latino dean at University of Miami School of Law, where he was appointed dean emeritus after the conclusion of his deanship.
President Bravo said, “An increase in the number of Hispanic/Latino law professors and law school deans will translate into an increase in law school enrollment by Hispanic and Latino/a students inspired by educators who hail from their same communities, share their backgrounds and struggles, and in many cases, share a bilingual heritage. The work of this Task Force is long overdue, and I am delighted that former Associate Dean Matas and Dean Varona, with many decades of distinguished nationally recognized service in legal education between them, will lead us in this important work.”
The Task Force will oversee the development of annual summer nationwide online workshops for prospective and existing Hispanic/Latino law faculty and law school deanship aspirants, through programs such as the Michael Olivas Summer Writing Institute and the GO LILA summer workshops, collaboration with other established workshops, and by organizing new initiatives to increase Hispanic and Latino/a diversity in the legal academy. The Task Force will plan in-person “how to become a law professor” workshops at the annual HNBA conferences, assist with matching law faculty and law dean aspirants with suitable mentors, support the professional development of and networking opportunities for currently appointed Hispanic/Latino law faculty, promote better data tracking by national accreditation and membership associations, and otherwise promote more Hispanic and Latino/a representation in the legal professoriate and decanal ranks.
In addition to Matas and Varona, the HNBA Task Force on Law Faculty and Deans will include as members nationally renowned legal education leaders, known for their dedication to diversifying the legal profession and the academy, including:
Dolores S. Atencio, Esq., Visiting Scholar, U. of Denver Latinx Center|Sturm College of Law
Steven Bender, Prof. & Assoc. Dean for Planning & Strategic Initiatives, Seattle U. School of Law
Kevin R. Johnson, Dean and Mabie-Apallas Prof. of Public Interest Law & Professor of Chicana/o Studies, UC Davis School of Law
José Roberto (Beto) Juárez, Jr., Dean & Prof., Nova Southeastern U. Broad College of Law
Jenny Martinez, Lang Prof. of Law and Dean, Stanford Law School
Margaret Montoya, Prof. Emerita of Law (and Medicine), U. of New Mexico
Jennifer Rosato Perea, Dean & Prof. of Law, DePaul U. College of Law
Hon. Jenny Rivera, Associate Judge, New York Court of Appeals
Ediberto Román, Prof. of Law, Florida International U. College of Law
Krista Contino Saumby, Esq., Assoc. Director of Career Dev., Elon University School of Law
Paulina Vera, Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington U. Law School
This Task Force shall operate as a Presidential Special Committee.
###
The Hispanic National Bar Association is an incorporated, not-for-profit, national membership association that represents the interests of over 78,000+ Hispanic attorneys, judges, law professors, legal assistants, law students, and legal professionals in the United States and its territories. Since 1972, the HNBA has acted as a force for positive change within the legal profession by creating opportunities for Hispanic lawyers and by helping generations of lawyers to succeed.
**********************
Congrats to Paulina, Dean Kevin Johnson, and all the other outstanding scholar/leaders named to this group. Another place where more diversity is long overdue is the Federal Bench. In particular, despite the disparate impact of Immigration Court decisions on Hispanic-American communities, they are underrepresented on the bench at EOIR.
As the awesome talent represented by this Task Force shows, it isn’t for lack of exceptionally well-qualified judicial candidates available in the private sector. It’s a recruiting and cultural problem at DOJ, along with severe credibility problems stemming from perceptions of overall hostility at EOIR to asylum seekers, other migrants, and their lawyers, often directed at Hispanics and other individuals of color. The “culture” at EOIR really can only be changed by getting on the “inside” — that means getting on the bench or into the EOIR supervisory structure.
On a positive note, one of my fellow panelists on that occasion, Hon. Claudia Cubas, is now an Immigration Judge at the Hyattsville (MD) Immigration Court!
I look forward to Paulina and other NDPA superstars 🌟 like her joining Judge Cubas on the bench in the near future. Positive change requires working “at all levels” to pump due process, fundamental fairness, and decisional excellence into a broken justice system.
Under AG Garland, at least some semblance of a “merit-based” selection system, one that honors immigration representation and human rights experience, has taken hold at EOIR. Therefore, Immigration Judge positions are the ideal “entry level” for those seeking careers in the Federal Judiciary.
Also, the “hands on” experience with making difficult decisions at the critical “retail level” of American justice will be an asset in any career path. Every correct decision at EOIR is potentially life-changing and life-saving! There aren’t many other areas where you can say that! These decisions are far, far too important to individuals and to our nation’s future to be left to the “amateur night at the Bijou” aura that unfortunately (tragically) has permeated EOIR in recent years!
Very proud to say that Paulina is a “distinguished alum” of the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court Internship Program and a “charter member” of the NDPA! 😎⚖️🗽
AILA is pleased to welcome this blog post from long-time AILA member Careen Shannon, Senior Counsel (formerly Partner) at Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP, and the Executive Producer of an important new documentary, “Las Abogadas: Attorneys on the Front Lines of the Migrant Crisis.” AILA members in town for the Spring Conference have a chance to see “Las Abogadas” at the Washington, DC International Film Festival on Wednesday, April 26, at 6:00 p.m., with a second show on Friday, April 28, at 8:30 p.m.
When my friend Rebecca Eichler told me that a documentary filmmaker was making a movie about her experience providing legal advice to members of a Central American migrant caravan as it made its way north through Mexico in 2018, I said, “That’s nice.” Later, when film production stalled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, she sent me a link to a trailer and encouraged me to take a look, and I promised to do so. But I was busy managing my remote work for the Fragomen law firm where I was then a partner, and I put all thoughts of the film aside.
Then one day, I watched the trailer, and I was hooked. Here was a story that needed to be told. It wasn’t just about Rebecca, but about tenacious lawyers – mostly women – who were dedicating their lives to defending the rights of asylum seekers, reuniting migrant families torn apart by the Trump administration’s cruel family separation policy, and fighting to uphold the rule of law at a time when the few existing safeguards for migrants seeking refuge from harm were being systematically dismantled.
I reached out to the film’s Director, Victoria Bruce, who I later learned only reluctantly took my call at Rebecca’s urging, since at that point she had run out of steam – and money – and was not sure she had it in her to complete the film. But we had a great conversation, we fed off of each other’s enthusiasm for the subject matter, and by the end of our talk she had invited me to sign on as the film’s Executive Producer.
Two years into the pandemic, I decided to step down as a partner at Fragomen and dedicate myself to ensuring that this important film got made. Fast forward to today, and Las Abogadas: Attorneys on the Front Lines of the Migrant Crisis is making the rounds of film festivals, winning awards, and garnering critical acclaim. Las Abogadas (which means “the women lawyers” in Spanish) follows a group of women immigration attorneys over a multi-year odyssey as the U.S. government under Trump upends every protection for those fleeing from persecution, violence and war. The film’s narrative continues into the first two years of the Biden administration, where great hope gives way to a despair my fellow AILA members undoubtedly share, that nothing fundamental had changed in U.S. immigration policy.
. . . .
*********************
Read the complete article at the link.
“Nothing fundamentally has changed.” Rather than listening to, recruiting, partnering with, and following the advice of those on the “front lines” of defending individual rights, freedoms, and upholding American democracy, the Biden Administration disastrously turned immigration, human rights, and racial justice policies over to a bunch of “wonks” disconnected from the preventable human tragedies and mocking of the rule of law represented by Trump’s xenophobic, White Nationalist agenda.
Today, President Biden announced his candidacy for re-election in 2024. Part of his slogan is “protecting personal freedoms” from the GOP right-wing authoritarian, police state — bedrooms, bathrooms, classrooms, voting booths, more guns, MAGA-maniacs plan to invade and regulate every aspect of your life. But Biden’s miserable performance on immigrants’ rights and his Administration’s tone-deaf “dissing” of those like the heroes of “Las Abogadas,” suggests he will need more than a slogan to energize a critical, too often ignored,“core component” of the Dem base.
He could start by watching “Las Abogadas” along with VP Harris (who “took on” the “immigration portfolio,” and has been MIA since), his politicos, and his campaign staff and heeding the message. Social justice advocates are understandably skeptical about Biden’s promises. He needs actions that advance due process, the rule of law, and humane, robust, orderly processing of refugees and asylum seekers!
As the Trump debacle demonstrated, when immigrants’ rights disappear, all other individual and personal rights in America are in the far-right’s sights! It doesn’t take much imagination (except, perhaps, for some so-called “centrist” Dems) to see how the onslaught of anti-immigrant myths, rhetoric, and legislation by the GOP right has quickly shifted to hate bills targeting gays, transgender, women, Black History, teachers, voters, election officials, rational gun control, heck, even doctors, nurses, and established medical science!
Careen Shannon Senior Counsel (formerly Partner) Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP Executive Producer “Las Abogadas: Attorneys on the Front Lines of the Migrant Crisis.” Photo: Think Immigration
Many congrats to Careen Shannon and everyone else involved in this tremendous project!
Domestic policy adviser Susan Rice is stepping down from her post.
Rice, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, helped the Biden administration with expanding the Affordable Care Act, getting his Inflation Reduction Act into law, and passing gun control legislation. The move comes as the White House is facing controversy over its handling of migrant children who crossed the Southern border.
“As the only person to serve as both National Security Advisor and Domestic Policy Advisor, Susan’s record of public service makes history,” said President Joe Biden in a statement announcing the departure. “But what sets her apart as a leader and colleague is the seriousness with which she takes her role and the urgency and tenacity she brings, her bias towards action and results, and the integrity, humility and humor with which she does this work.”
Rice’s departure leaves a major hole within the top ranks of the White House right as it gears up for a likely re-election campaign and as it faces a stare down with congressional Republicans over raising the debt limit. Among those being eyed as a replacement for her include Neera Tanden, Biden’s staff secretary and a senior adviser, four people with knowledge of the deliberations told POLITICO. Separately, a top White House official said no replacement had been identified yet.
One former administration official said White House aides were talking openly about Tanden’s consideration for Rice’s job over the weekend, calling her potential appointment “pretty damn firm.”
. . . .
*****************
Read the full article at the link.
Say what you will, Rice never got a handle on the need to restore the rule of law for asylum seekers at the border. Nor did she ever “get” the simple fact that you can’t solve a humanitarian situation through law enforcement focused largely on deterrence and punishment.
Although reviled by the GOP, Rice appeared to uncritically adopt many of Stephen Miller’s most xenophobic border myths and showed little interest in listening to experts who actually are working with asylum seekers and kids at the border.
In theory, Neera Tanden, whose nomination to be OMB Director was “torpedoed” by the GOP and Sen. Joe Manchin, could be better for human rights. But, 1) she doesn’t actually have the job yet; and 2) we’ve been here before with folks who look good from a distance but can’t perform in practice.
Among the apparent reasons for Tanden’s OMB rejection was that she had sent nasty e-mails and tweets about some Senators.
That was a case of the GOP having mass amnesia about the intemperate statements, personal insults, and incoherent rage that were a staple of their former election-denying President whom most blindly supported, and continue to cover for, through all transgressions against decorum and the law.
I suspect that most due process and human rights advocates aren’t shedding any tears about Rice’s impending departure. We’ll see what happens next.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP and NIJC represent class action of people facing prolonged waits for permanent immigration protection following 2021 evacuation from Afghanistan.
Afghan people seeking asylum are suing the U.S. government over delays in processing their asylum applications, nearly two years after they first arrived in the United States as part of a U.S. operation to evacuate allies who faced threats of persecution as the Taliban retook power in Afghanistan.
The plaintiffs in Ahmed v. Department of Homeland Security include people who worked for U.S. agencies in Kabul, women’s rights advocates, a healthcare worker, a teacher, and a journalist. Their temporary immigration status in the United States is set to expire in less than five months. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenges the failure of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate the asylum applications filed by seven plaintiffs, and thousands of other Afghan people resettled in the United States, within the 150-day deadline set by Congress.
The plaintiffs ask the court to order DHS and USCIS to decide all overdue Afghan asylum adjudications within 30 days and to abide by the 150-day deadline in the future.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP Litigation Partner Mike Williams, who is working on this pro bono case, said: “This is a case about broken promises and broken trust, but also about the United States breaking its own laws. That is why we are asking the Court to require the United States to keep its promises to these Afghan people seeking asylum. These asylum applicants are among the most vulnerable to come to our country, and they should not be in legal limbo.”
National Immigrant Justice Center Attorney Richard Caldarone, who is co-counsel in the case, said: “USCIS’s systematic failure to decide asylum applications for Afghan people in the timeline set by Congress is inexcusable. For thousands of people — particularly those who had to leave family behind in Afghanistan — USCIS’s delays compound the trauma of Taliban threats and violence. Afghan people were forced to flee their homes and their country because they worked for liberty, equality, and democracy; they deserve better.”
The plaintiffs came to the United States in August 2021 as part of the U.S. government’s Operation Allies Welcome, which allowed Afghan people who passed stringent security and background checks to resettle in the United States and receive two years of humanitarian parole while they applied for more permanent immigration status. Additionally, Congress passed legislation requiring DHS and USCIS to “expeditiously adjudicate” asylum applications within 150 days for Afghan people who were resettled under the operation.
But DHS and USCIS have adjudicated just 11 percent of the roughly 16,000 asylum applications filed by Afghan people evacuated to the United States. Thousands of applications have been pending well past the 150-day adjudication deadline, and many people will see their temporary parole status expire in August 2023. The safety of those who applied for asylum remains in limbo, and their spouses and children trapped in Afghanistan continue to live under constant threats of danger.
This appears to be yet more “low hanging fruit” that the Administration could have handled without litigation to force them to do their job! What a HUGE, INSANE, UNNECESSARY WASTE of time and precious resources for the Biden Administration to choose to be perpetually “at war” with human rights experts and NGOs who have the knowledge and energy to craft and implement better legal approaches to refugees, asylum, adjudications, and restoring “order at the border!”
The Biden Administration’s propensity to adopt really bad approaches to human rights, asylum, and due process, and to “boot even the easy ones,” leaves Casey scratching his head and asking, “Can’t anyone here play this game?” PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
Indeed, forcing Afghan evacuees into a ridiculously backlogged asylum adjudication system when they should have been admitted as refugees was a poorly conceived process in the first place! We sure could have used the Ambassadorial-level U.S. Refugee Coordinator originally created by the Refugee Act of 1980 but eventually swallowed by an intransigent State Department bureaucracy that always resented the function and its intended independence!
Hernandez v. Garland, 2d Cir., 04-21-23, Walker, Pooler, Park, Circuit Judges
POOLER, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
2 Standards matter. A standard of review is the essential mechanism that
3 defines an appellate court’s proper role in reviewing the record presented. All
4 appellate courts must adhere to the proper standard of review. The Board of
5 Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “the Board”) is no exception. Here, the BIA
6 applied a standard that substantially deviated from the clear error standard and
7 improperly made factual findings that contradicted those made by the
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The BIA’s failure to adhere to the proper standard is
9 “the type of error that requires remand.” De La Rosa v. Holder, 598 F.3d 103, 108
10 (2d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
11 This Court lacks jurisdiction to review purely discretionary decisions by
12 the BIA, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), but we retain jurisdiction over
13 “constitutional claims or questions of law,” Noble v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 73, 77 (2d
14 Cir. 2007) (quoting § 1252(a)(2)(D)). When reviewing decisions, “[t]he Board will
15 not engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by an immigration
16 judge. Facts determined by the immigration judge, including findings as to the
17 credibility of testimony, shall be reviewed only to determine whether the
18 findings of the immigration judge are clearly erroneous.” 8 C.F.R. §
1
1 1003.1(d)(3)(i). “[W]hen the BIA engages in factfinding in contravention of 8
2 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv), it commits an error of law, which [the Court has]
3 jurisdiction to correct.” Padmore v. Holder, 609 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2010); see also
4 Rizal v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84, 89 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining that the Court will
5 vacate BIA decisions “that result from flawed reasoning or the application of
6 improper legal standards”). Though the BIA “may review questions of law” and
7 “all other issues” on appeal de novo, see § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii), it is explicitly barred
8 from “engag[ing] in factfinding in the course of deciding cases” aside from
9 taking “administrative notice of facts that are not reasonably subject to dispute,”
10 § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A).
11 Here, the BIA recited the precise legal standard at the beginning of its May
12 2019 decision. Special App’x at 7 (citing § 1003.1(d)(3)). But we do not simply
13 “rely on the Board’s invocation of the clear error standard; rather, when the issue
14 is raised, [the Court’s] task is to determine whether the BIA faithfully employed
15 the clear error standard or engaged in improper de novo review of the IJ’s factual
16 findings.” Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Chen v.
17 Bureau of Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 470 F.3d 509, 514 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that
18 despite “cit[ing] the proper legal standard at the outset of its decision, [the BIA]
2
1 failed to apply this deferential standard of review”). Despite its invocation of the
2 clear error standard, the BIA did not ultimately apply this standard of review to
3 Oscar Hernandez’s case. Merely reciting the standard does not transform the
4 BIA’s impermissible factfinding into a permissible exercise of discretion. Such lip
5 service should not suffice.
6 The majority opinion characterizes the BIA’s impermissible factfinding as a
7 simple “de novo reweighing of the equities based on the facts found by the IJ.”
8 Maj. Op. at 3. That is not the case. Without identifying any of the IJ’s findings as
9 clearly erroneous, the BIA implicitly rejected the IJ’s factual findings and
10 substituted the facts found by the IJ with its own factual findings. If the BIA
11 rejects the IJ’s findings, we expect it to “supply cogent reasons for its rulings,”
12 which the BIA failed to provide. See Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2016).
13 The BIA completely disregarded the IJ’s credibility determination when it
14 concluded, contrary to the IJ’s findings, that it “d[id] not find [Hernandez’s]
15 explanation convincing” regarding the circumstances of his 2016 arrest. Special
16 App’x at 10. This divergence in characterization of the 2016 incident was central
17 to the BIA’s decision. In its attempt to parse out the definition of “convincing,”
18 the majority claims the BIA did not overturn the IJ’s factual findings, arguing the
3
1 BIA’s intended use of the word meant it was not “persuaded” by Hernandez’s
2 explanation, not that his testimony was not “truthful.” Maj. Op. at 11. This is an
3 unconvincing distinction. Next, the majority suggests the BIA doubted that
4 Hernandez warranted discretionary relief, not the truthfulness of his testimony.
5 Id. at 12. That clarification, however, does not do much to support the majority’s
6 argument. The BIA’s “de novo” reconsideration of whether Hernandez merited a
7 favorable exercise of discretion was premised on its factual determination that he
8 had “continued to engage in violent behavior” following his first arrest and
9 conviction in 2009. Special App’x at 10. The only evidence cited for this
10 determination was that Hernandez’s “most recent arrest in 2016 . . . included
11 abusive behavior toward his spouse”—a characterization directly at odds with
12 the IJ’s findings. Special App’x at 10.
. . . .
*******************************
You can read the full decision, including Judge Poolers’ full dissent, at the link.
As Judge Pooler points out, manipulation of the standards of review can be used either to improperly substitute judgement on fact-findings (BIA) or too avoid critical review of BIA’s actions (Circuit majority).
Thanks to Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for passing this along.
