"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.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
A Victory before the BIA!
Hi All: I hope you are not getting tired of all the winning. Today, the BIA issued a precedent decision on the whole Pereira and Niz-Chavez jurisdictional issue involving service of a defective NTA (link attached) in which our Round Table submitted an amicus brief drafted for us by our own Sue Roy.And the BIA actually agreed with us!!!
The holding:
The Department of Homeland Security cannot remedy a notice to appear that lacks the date and time of the initial hearing before the Immigration Judge by filing a Form I-261 because this remedy is contrary to the plain text of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.30 and inconsistentwith the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021).
Of course, our brief was not acknowledged in the Board’s decision.
A thousand thanks to Sue and to all in this group who have repeatedly signed on in support of due process.
As a reminder, we still await a decision from the Supreme Court on whether Pereira and Niz-Chavez extend to in absentia orders of removal. Oral arguments in that case were heard earlier this month, and our brief was mentioned in response to a question by Chief Justice Roberts.
Best, Jeff
********************
“Our Hero” 🦸♂️ Hon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Want to meet Judge Sue Roy in person and learn from her in a small group setting? You’re in luck! (HINT: She’s not only a very talented lawyer and teacher, but she’s also very entertaining and down to earth in her “Jersey Girl Persona!”)
“Don’t mess with Jersey Girls! They’ll roll right over you — in or out of court.” Creative Commons License
The Round Table 🛡️ will be well-represented by Judge Roy, Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg, and me at the upcoming Sharma-Crawford Clinic 7th Annual Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College in Kansas City, MO, April 24-26, 2024! We’ll be part of afaculty of all-star 🌟 NDPA litigators who are there to help every attendee sharpen skills and reach their full potential as a fearless litigator in Immigration Court — and beyond!
“In sum, the BIA erred in finding that Chicas-Machado was not a refugee under the INA due to a lack of nexus to a protected ground, religion. Chicas-Machado demonstrated past persecution on account of religion, and is therefore entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Qiao Hua Li, 405 F.3d at 176-77. Recognizing the BIA’s error, we grant the petition for review and remand the case for further proceedings. Upon remand, the BIA must determine whether the Government can rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 If the BIA concludes that Chicas-Machado is eligible for asylum on remand, it should reconsider her withholding of removal claim. See Sorto-Guzman, 42 F.4th at 450. We decline to reach all other issues raised on appeal as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims, and direct the BIA to reevaluate those claims following its reconsideration of Chicas-Machado’s asylum application. See Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 350, 361 n.10 (4th Cir. 2021) (declining to reach the merits of withholding of removal appeal after finding error in the BIA’s asylum analysis).”
“This petition raises important questions about proper notice in removal proceedings. Federal immigration law mandates that the government provide a noncitizen with a written notice to appear that contains certain critical details about her removal hearing, including the “time and place” of the proceedings. In a pair of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has clarified that the notice to appear must be a single document containing all statutorily required information. See Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021); Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Petitioners Azucena Aracely Lazo-Gavidia and her minor son were ordered removed in absentia. The immigration judge denied their motion to reopen the removal proceedings and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. Because Lazo-Gavidia and her son received defective notices to appear, we grant their petition, vacate the Board’s order dismissing their appeal, and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Glenn Fogle! Listen to the oral argument here.]
“Because an offender can be convicted under Nebraska’s shoplifting statute when he acts with an intent not encompassed by a generic theft offense, we hold that the statute sweeps more broadly than the generic federal offense. Accordingly, the BIA erred in finding that Thok was removable for having committed a theft offense—and, thus, an aggravated felony—based upon his Nebraska shoplifting convictions. … For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“Mercy Naah, a native of Cameroon, was charged as removable from the United States. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Naah demonstrated that she is unable or unwilling to return to Cameroon because of past persecution on account of her political opinion. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports for the Round Table 🛡️⚔️:
5. Experts
Unpublished 1st Cir. Victory [Experts]
[T]o keep it brief, we were on the winning side in an unpublished 1st Cir. decision issued today in which the IJ and BIA wrongly gave little weight to an country expert’s opinion on the risk petitioner faced in a CAT case. Decision attached. The Round Table filed an amicus brief in this one. Another great win for SangYeob Kim, Gilles Bissonnette and the ACLU of New Hampshire!
More to follow. We continue to make a difference!
Best, Jeff
I have just learned that counsel is filing a motion to publish. There is good language regarding the evidentiary weight of one qualified as an expert who testifies credibly. The decision points out that an expert need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying their opinion, as long as such opinion is based on sufficient facts or data;” that “An expert cannot be “undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed;” and that where an IJ makes factual findings not consistent with the expert’s opinion, it is important for the IJ to explain the reasons behind those findings.
Why do Dems routinely shoot themselves in the foot on immigration while driving a wedge between Dems in power and the immigration/social justice advocates who helped them get there?
In each of the 4th Circuit cases here, our Dem AG aligned himself with restrictionist positions advocated by dissenting Bush II and Trump appointees, while eschewing the far better-reasoned, more practical approaches advocated by expert advocates and adopted by the jurists in the majority who are committed to due process.
As the 4th Circuit majority in Chicas-Machado cogently points out, the BIA’s “excessively narrow reading” of nexus conflicts with both the statutory language and practical considerations regarding the motivation of persecutors (not to mention riding roughshod over existing, binding Circuit precedent). The BIA has a long and troubling history of ignoring “mixed motive” to deny asylum.
Yet, instead of improving under Dems, the BIA’s abuse of nexus to wrongfully disqualify qualified refugees from protection has continued to metastasize under Garland! It’s all part of the anti-immigrant, “any reason to deny” culture at EOIR, promoted by Sessions and Barr and not effectively addressed by Garland.
Happy to see another Round Table victory on use of experts. But, the 1st Circuit should have published this instructive decision. Hopefully, they now will!
As we know, the BIA’s systemic mishandling of experts is a chronic problem, particularly as the BIA intentionally overcomplicates the law, as a “deterrent,” so experts are almost a requirement for success. (Even though it is well-known that many asylum applicants have difficulty just getting competent pro bono lawyers to represent them, let alone the services of “pro bono experts.”). Every example helps expose the BIA’s professional misconduct, for which Garland and his DOJ leadership have shown an unusual and disturbing tolerance.
If you don’t bring an expert, they deny for failure to sustain your B/P! If you do bring an expert, they minimize, misconstrue, or ignore their testimony!
“Catch 22” — the applicant loses either way!
Experts are also important because it’s an area where the Article IIIs’ experience with experts in civil litigation far exceeds the BIA’s. Therefore, they are apt to recognize the BIA’s sharp divergence from the weight and respect ordinarily given to experts in civil litigation. Hence, we have had substantial success with the Circuits in challenging the BIA’s continuing, inappropriately dismissive, treatment of experts.
The BIA routinely uses sloppy, often internally inconsistent, “boilerplate” in their decisions. Yet, they somehow find time to “nitpick” expert testimony looking for every minor or insignificant “omission” or “discrepancy” to discredit the expert! What a disgrace!
Finally, on Naah v. Garland, a special “shout out” to long-time NDPA stalwart and role model Danielle Beach-Oswald on her victory in a Cameroonian political persecution case in the 5th Circuit. As the decision reflects, asylum victories on non-procedural issues are hard to come by in the 5th. Danielle was a “Legacy Arlington Immigration Court regular” during my time on the bench. This just further cements her status as “one of the best in the business!”
Congrats, Danielle, and thanks for all you do!
Think how much better this system would function with a BIA of real subject-matter experts focused on due process and fundamental fairness — rather than helping out their “partners” at DHS enforcement and protecting their careers in the process! And, what if we also had a Dem AG focused on due process for immigrants in “his” courts, rather than being asleep at the switch and complicit in some of the worst, anti immigrant, biased, backlog building “jurisprudence” rolled out by the Federal “justice” system!
What if once in office, Dems actually courageously stood up for the immigrants, advocates, and values they claim to represent during elections?
“Dagoberto Luna petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to rescind an in absentia removal order. Luna contends he received a defective Notice to Appear that renders the in absentia removal order invalid. We agree. We GRANT Luna’s petition, VACATE, and REMAND for further proceedings.”
[Hats off yet again to superlitigator Raed Gonzalez!]
When will they learn, when will they ever learn? The ultra-conservative 5th Circuit pays attention when Raed litigates in behalf of individuals seeking due process and fundamental fairness at EOIR. Why doesn’t Garland?
“This appeal arises from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of Karla Yadira Lara Canales’s motion to reopen her removal proceedings. The BIA denied her motion to reopen as untimely, leaving the order of removal in place. We now VACATE the BIA’s denial of Lara Canales’s motion to reopen and REMAND so that the BIA may properly consider whether Lara Canales is entitled to equitable tolling. … [E]ach of the BIA’s bases for determining that Lara Canales had not accrued the continuous physical presence required for eligibility of cancellation of removal was legal error. We now hold that Lara Canales is statutorily eligible to seek cancellation of removal. However, this holding does not automatically entitle Lara Canales to have her motion to reopen heard on the merits. The BIA must, upon remand, engage in the fact-intensive determination of whether the 90-day deadline on motions to reopen should be tolled because of the extraordinary circumstance presented by Pereira. If the BIA determines Lara Canales satisfies the requirements for equitable tolling, she may then present her motion for a determination on its merits. We therefore VACATE the BIA’s denial of Lara Canales’s motion to reopen and REMAND this case for further consideration not inconsistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off once again to superlitigator Raed Gonzalez!]
Thanks Raed for continuing to lead the fight for justice in “America’s worst ‘court’ system” in America’s most right-wing Circuit!
THIS “any reason to deny mentality” at EOIR, still being promoted by Garland’s BIA, combined with incredibly inept and unprofessional “administration” of EOIR by DOJ, is why the Immigration Court is broken and being crushed by unending backlogs, daily chaos, and a travesties of justice and sound government!
The Biden Administration pretends like the problem doesn’t exist and/or isn’t important enough to fix. But, I can assure you that they are WRONG! “Dead wrong” in some cases!
In addition to the public manifestations of dysfunction and unprofessionalism like this case, I get regular e-mails from NDPA members relating their own EOIR horror stories and venting their frustrations with the arrogant “above the fray/what me worry about humanity and those defending it” attitude of Garland and the rest of the Biden Administration responsible for the ongoing EOIR catastrophe!
I strongly doubt that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Prelogar, and the rest of the DOJ “clueless crew” responsible for this indelible blot on American justice would last 60 days if required to practice exclusively before EOIR under the unfathomably horrible, due-process-denying conditions they have promoted and enabled over their past two years of horrible legal “leadership!” As aptly stated by one practitioner who recently contacted me:
“Things in Immigration Court will never be the same, but I at least expected attention to due process. Nope, IJ’s are more interested in getting the cases done.”
How is this appropriate conduct from a Dem Administration that claims to value human lives, racial justice, and the rule of law, but whose actions at EOIR (and elsewhere in immigration and human rights) say the exact opposite? Poorly functioning as EOIR was when I retired in 2016, the “anecdotal consensus” from practitioners seems to be that it’s measurably worse now under Garland’s inept leadership! “Come on man,” this just isn’t right!
After all this time (17 years since the BIA’s supposedly “final” order), this case is still not complete! It’s back at the BIA for yet another chance for them to deny on specious, legally incorrect grounds. One possibility is to misapply the “equitable tolling” concept mentioned by the 5th Circuit. The BIA has a long, disgraceful record of resisting and mis-applying equitable tolling.
Or, perhaps they will attempt to invoke their recent precedent in Matter of Chen, 28 I&N Dec. 676 (BIA 2023) https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1561876/download to deny reopening for “failing to make out a prima facie case for relief on the merits.”
Chen is a case where the the respondent moved to reopen to apply for NLP cancellation having attained the required 10 years of physical presence by reason of the BIA’s two wrong-headed precedents overruled by the Supremes in Pereira v. Sessions and Niz-Chavez v. Garland. Having twice screwed up in a way that created tens of thousands of potential remands and reopenings, someone not familiar with the BIA might have expected them to set forth clear, practical, generous criteria that would encourage IJ’s to consistently reopen cases where the respondent now had the qualifying time and relative(s) in light of the problems caused by the BIA itself. After all, that’s basically the direction in the BIA’s long-standing precedent Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 413 (BIA 1996) (reopening where the record“indicate[s] a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, so as to make it worthwhile to develop the issues at a hearing”). https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjWzY36pdn8AhVgF1kFHTcxChEQFnoECBkQAQ&url=https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3281.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2Ntzlp4MuxfupmjaDIn7i6
Since “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is inherently a fact-bound issue requiring a hearing to develop those facts, one might expect most cases to be routinely reopened.
But, the BIA took a different tack in Chen. While acknowledging that the hardship asserted by the respondent fell within the zone of those “recognized” by the BIA, they found “she has not identified and documented heightened hardship beyond that which would normally be expected to occur in such circumstances.”
While the BIA claimed to be “following” Matter of L-O-G-, they actually appear to have violated the teaching of that case that: “In considering a motion to reopen, the Board should not prejudge the merits of a case before the [respondent] has had an opportunity to prove the case.”(21 I&N Dec. at 419). That should particularly be true when the BIA itself has had a major role in creating the situation where reopening is sought.
By providing only a negative precedent (they didn’t even botherto “bookend” this with a precedential example of a grantable motion) to a system already suffering from a “culture of denial,” the BIA aggravated an long-festering problem. One can expect many IJ’s to view Chen as an “invitation to deny” the many Pereira/Niz Chavez motions to reopen in the offing for specious reasons or indeed for “any reason at all.” I expect talented NDPA warriors like Raed to make mincemeat out of the BIA’s wrong-headed attempt to minimize the “Pereira-induced damage” they have generated.
Like most of the misguided efforts of the 21st Century BIA, this attempt to cut corners, summarily deny, and NOT provide full due process and real hearings is likely to take more time and waste more resources than simply giving respondents the fair merits hearings to which they are legally entitled in the first place.But, that’s exactly what this Dem Administration has wrought at EOIR. “More of the same, instead of the promised change!”
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)Raed Gonzalez ESQUIRE Chairman, Gonzalez Olivieri LLP Houston, TX PHOTO: best lawyers.com
From Dan:
Another CA5 Pereira / Niz-Chavez Remand: Parada v. Garland (unpub.)
“[T]he BIA’s decision to deny Parada’s motion to reopen was based on a legally erroneous interpretation of the statutes governing Notices to Appear and the stop-time rule. The Supreme Court has since reinforced the holding of Pereira and held—again— that to trigger the stop-time rule, a Notice to Appear must come in the form of “a single document containing all the information an individual needs to know about his removal hearing.” Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1478, 1486 (2021). That did not occur in this case, as the Notices to Appear served on Parada and her daughter did not contain the time or date for their removal proceedings. Thus, because “[a] putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ and so does not trigger the stop-time rule,” Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A)), the deficient Notices to Appear received by the Paradas did not stop the clock for the Paradas. … [O]ne of two keys must fit before the stop-time rule can be unlocked: service of a valid Notice to Appear or commission of an enumerated offense. The latter has not occurred here as no one has asserted that either of the Paradas has committed such an offense. And we have already concluded that the former has not occurred because the Notices to Appear served on the Paradas lacked the time and date of their hearing. Thus, the stop-time-rule box remained locked, the Paradas’ clock never stopped, and they accrued the necessary 10 years to satisfy the physical-presence requirement for cancellation of removal. In so concluding, we agree with the Ninth Circuit [emphasis added] which also held that “[b]y its terms . . . the stop-time rule applies to only the two circumstances set out in the statute, and a final order of removal satisfies neither.” Quebrado Cantor, 17 F.4th at 871. … To return to the analogy above, when Congress provided the two exceptions to the physical-presence requirement, it created all the keys that would fit. It did not additionally create a skeleton key that could fit when convenient. To conclude otherwise “would turn this principle on its head, using the existence of two exceptions to authorize a third very specific exception.” Quebrado Cantor, 17 F.4th at 874. Instead, “the ‘proper inference’ is that Congress considered which events ought to ‘stop the clock’ on a nonpermanent resident’s period of continuous physical presence and settled, in its legislative judgment, on only two.” Id. (quoting Johnson, 529 U.S. at 58). Lacking either here, the BIA committed a legal error in concluding otherwise and finding that the Paradas did not satisfy the physical-presence requirement to be eligible for cancellation of removal. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent pay to petitioners the costs on appeal [emphasis added] to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court.”
[Yet another victory for Superlitigator Raed Gonzalez! Who else could persuade CA5 to agree with CA9, and get an award of costs?]
Due Process Superheroes like Houston’s Raed Gonzalez are standing up for the rights of EVERYONE in America! PHOTO: Creative Commons
Kudos to Raed for “taking it to” America’s worst “courts” in America’s most “immigrant-unfriendly” Circuit!
Tons of “rotten tomatoes” to Garland for his horrible mismanagement of EOIR, OIL, and the legal aspects of immigration policy at DOJ!
Rotten Tomatoes Garland & his lieutenants deserve appropriate recognition for failing to bring long-overdue reforms to America’s most dysfunctional “parody of a court system” — EOIR! PHOTO: Creative Commmons
Immigration expert Professor Richard Boswell of UC Hastings College of Law asks: “Can someone explain why the government has been so obstinate on these cases?I like the fee award but I doubt that it has much impact on their behavior.”
Professor Richard Boswell UC Hastings Law PHOTO: LinkedIn Professor Boswell asks the right question. So far, “Team Garland” has no answers!
I wish I knew, my friend, I wish I knew! There is no rational excuse for Garland’s abject failure to: put EOIR and OIL under progressive expert leadership committed to human rights and due process; replace the many weak “Trump holdover appointees” at the BIA with expert real, professionally competent judges; weed out more of the “deadwood” on the immigration bench; bring in qualified experts as EOIR Judges who could potentially create an existential improvement in the composition, performance, and procedures of the entire Federal Judiciary that would go even beyond the essential task of saving the lives of migrants; and finally make Constitutional Due Process and equal justice for all real at the “retail level” of our American Justice system!
If our democracy fails — certainly an unhappy possibility at this point in time — future historians will undoubtedly dissect the major responsibility stemming from Garland’s inexplicably weak, disconnected, and inept performance in ignoring the dangerous dysfunction in our Immigration Courts and Immigration Judiciary.
The scurrilous attack on our democracy by far-right demagogues started with racist lies about immigrants, continued with the weaponizing of the Immigration Courts, and evolved with the compromising of the Article III Judiciary! But, it certainly hasn’t ended there!
Getting rid of the leftovers of the “Trump Kakistocracy” at DOJ and EOIR should be one of the top priorities of the Biden Administration’s “campaign to save American democracy!” Why isn’t it?
The unconscionable failure of Garland’s chief lieutenants, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and Elizabeth Prelogar — all of whom supposedly have some experience and expertise in constitutional law, human rights, civil rights, racial justice, and legal administration (talk about a shambles at EOIR!) — to get the job done for immigrant justice at DOJ also deserves to go “under the microscope” of critical examination.
How do they glibly go about their highly paid jobs daily while migrants suffer and die and their attorneys are forced to waste time and struggle against the absurdist disaster at EOIR? Can any of these “out of touch” bureaucrats and politicos even imagine what it’s like to be practicing at today’s legally incompetent, insanely mal-administered, intentionally anti-due-process, overtly user unfriendly EOIR?
By the grace of God, I’m not practicing before the Immigration Courts these days! But, after recent conversations with a number of top practitioners who are being traumatized, having their precious time wasted, and seeing their clients’ lives threatened by EOIR’s stunning ongoing incompetence and dysfunction, I don’t understand what gives high-level political appointees and smug bureaucrats the idea that they are entitled to be “above the fray” of the godawful dysfunction, downright stupidity, and human trauma at EOIR for which they are fully accountable!
One practitioner opened their so-called “EOIR Portal” to show me how they were being mindlessly “double and triple booked,” sometimes in different locations, even as we spoke. Cases set for 2024 were “accelerated” — for no obvious reason — to October 2022 without advance notice to or consultation with the attorney — a clear violation of due process! Asylum cases that would require a minimum of three hours for a fair hearing were being “shoehorned” into two-hour slots, again without consulting the parties!
Long a backwater of failed technology, the “powers that be” at EOIR and DOJ are misusing the limited, somewhat improved technology they now possess to make things worse: harassing practitioners, discouraging representation, and further undermining due process with haste makes waste “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.” Because of EOIR’s gross mismanagement, more Immigration Judges are actually producing more backlog, issuing more wrong decisions, and generating more unnecessary non-dispositive time-wasting motions. It’s an abuse of power and public funding on a massive, mind-boggling scale that undermines our entire justice system!
It seems that the “malicious incompetence” of the Trump DOJ has been exchanged for “just plain incompetence and intransigence” at Garland’s DOJ. Is this “change we should embrace?” Hell no!
Let’s hope that the real superheroes like Raed Gonzalez, folks working in the trenches of our failed justice system, can bail the rest of us out and inspire others to use all legal and political means at our disposal to rise up against Garland’s intransigence on immigration, human rights,and racial justice at DOJ!
I agree with President Biden that the extreme, insurrectionist far-right is the greatest threat to American democracy at this moment. But, it is by no means the ONLY one! It’s time for everyone committed to our nation’s future as a constitutional democracy to look closely at the deadly EOIR farce that threatens humanity, undermines the rule of law in America, and squanders tax dollars and demand positive change! Now!
It’s not rocket science, 🚀 even if it is inexplicably “over Garland’s head!”
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge/AG Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
“This is a consolidated petition seeking review of three orders from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming decisions from an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Petitioners’ motions to reopen. For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE the BIA decision and REMAND for reconsideration. … Statutory notice is the central issue in this case. All three family members argued before the BIA that they did not receive proper notice of the removal hearing, and thus that they should not have been removed in absentia. … The reasoning relied on by the BIA in its holding is now foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent. In Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021), we held that “in the in absentia context,” an NTA must consist of “a single document containing the required information” regarding the removal hearing. Id. at 355. Rodriguez controls the outcome of this case because here, as in Rodriguez, the initial NTAs did not contain the date and time of the removal hearings. Id. And here, just as in Rodriguez, the BIA concluded that the deficiency was cured by a “subsequent notice of hearing specifying that information.” Id. The BIA’s conclusion to that effect was an abuse of discretion, as it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a statute. See Barrios-Cantarero, 772 F.3d at 1021. … Accordingly, we VACATE the three BIA decisions and REMAND the three cases for reconsideration in light of Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021).”
Many congrats to fearless NDPA Superstar 🌟 Raed Gonzalez!
Is this just the “tip of the iceberg” 🧊 for rebukes of EOIR’s lousy “jurisprudence” that continues to be an ungodly mess under Garland?
Count on it! As Raed tells me:
Lots out there, and IJ’s keep on issuing in absentias with defective NTA’s. More lawsuits will be coming soon because of the fake dates and times in an attempt to go around Pereira and Chavez. Can’t wait!
It’s what happens when Dem Administrations mindlessly put the wrong folks in charge and and fail to give potential progressive judicial talent — brilliant, practical minds committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices — a chance to straighten out the law and bring order, consistency, and integrity to what certainly is the most important (and currently most dysfunctional) “retail level” judicial system in America!
Compare the available, spectacular progressive judicial talent Biden and Garland HAVEN’T appointed to the “Immigration Bench” with the out of bounds, far right, ignore the Constitution and the law, “turn back the clock” poppycock being spewed forth by Justice Alito and his radical right, GOP, Federalist Society trained buddies on the Supremes and elsewhere! The Biden Administration’s failure to bring long overdue, achievable, beneficial reforms and a wave of better judges to EOIR is a stunning “missed opportunity” that now threatens the very foundations of our democracy!
To put it bluntly: If folks like Raed and other “practical scholars and intellectual powerhouses” from the NDPA were in charge of EOIR and on the “Immigration Bench” these problems wouldn’t exist and real progress would be made in reducing the backlog while enhancing due process!
Folks coming before the Immigration Courts would be receiving justice — rather than blithering nonsense — and our country and the world would be better for it!
Far right activist 5th Circuit Judges reacting to colleagues who followed law and ruled in favor of immigrants. PHOTO: Creative Commons.
The issue is whether an in absentia removal order can be based on a statutorily defective notice. The panel followed the Supreme’s decision in Niz-Chavez and rejected the BIA’s conflicting decision in Matter of Laparra. In other words, the panel required the Government to follow the statute, a process known as “complying with the law.” This sent some of this most conservative circuit’s most far-right judges over the edge. Here’s the en banc decision:
Credit Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for the “food fight” characterization.
The scofflaw GOP dissenters cited “deference” to the Executive, something they have pointedly refused to apply to Biden Administration precedents and policies favoring migrants.
The majority says: “[The BIA] flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s Pereira decision, which Laparra ignored.”
Incredibly, Garland is on the “wrong side” of this controversy, defending the legally incorrect misinterpretation of his “Trump holdover” BIA!
The statutory requirement at issue: That a “Notice to Appear” before the Immigration Court inform the individual of the time and place of the hearing. How difficult does that sound? Not very, unless you are bumbling bureaucrat at DHS and EOIR who chose, even after the Supremes’ initial decision, toviolate that decision and the statute in almost 100% of the cases instituted before the Immigration Courts!
Kudos to the 3 Trump appointees and one Bush II appointee who joined 3 Obama appointees and 2 Clinton appointees to uphold the rule of law and thwart their GOP scofflaw colleagues.
Interestingly, and perhaps mildly encouraging, the “Trump appointees” split 3-3 on this one.
Apparently nothing drives a wedge between conservative judges like the scary prospect of following the law when it gives immigrants a win!
Future ambitious academic study: How much of the current out of control backlog can be traced to the Government’s, and particularly the BIA’s, inept handling of straightforward notice requirements set forth in the statute?
There’s a reason why I keep referring to Garland’s out of control EOIR backlogs as “largely self-created,” albeit in fairness not exclusively by him. The Trump Administration, and to a lesser extent the Obama Administration, also “excelled” at “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” driven by “prioritizing” improper political goals over due process, fundamental fairness, quality, and practical scholarship in the Immigration Courts.
The first three lessons learned from the BIA’s recent decision in Matter of Laparra1 are: (1) the Board knows only one tune; (2) that tune is the “Falls Church Two-Step,” and (3) the tune does not improve with repeated listening.
As background, Congress in 1996 passed a statute creating a document called a Notice to Appear, or “NTA” for short, which is used to commence removal proceedings before the Immigration Court. Congress defined an NTA to require that it include the time and place of the first hearing; the document is, after all, called a “notice to appear.”
However, for many years, the Department of Homeland Security cut a corner by leaving that crucial information out of hundreds of thousands of NTAs. The courts (which are not part of DHS, the entity issuing the NTA) would later send a different document telling the person when and where to appear. That second document might be sent weeks, months, or even years later.
As an aside, in other areas of immigration law, EOIR has applied a literal approach to interpreting statutory terms. An unfortunate example is found in the asylum context, where the BIA felt a strong need to add “particularity” and “social distinction” requirements for particular social group recognition, creating significant obstacles for asylum seekers. Yet the government’s defense of those terms has been based on the argument that every word in the term “particular social group” must be accorded a very literal meaning.
However, when it comes to the term “Notice to Appear,” the Board inexplicably doesn’t seem to think meaning should matter. According to the online version of the Cambridge English Dictionary, “notice” is defined as “(a board, piece of paper, etc. containing) information or instructions.” A “Notice to Appear” would therefore be a piece of paper containing information or instructions about when and where to appear. However, that is exactly the information or instructions that DHS saw fit to leave out of this particular document. The BIA nevertheless long stood firm in its conviction that a document which provides as much information or instruction about an upcoming hearing as a take-out menu from L&B Spumoni Gardens meets the legal definition of a “Notice to Appear.”
Not surprisingly, this government shortcut was successfully challenged by noncitizens wishing to seek a path to legal status in this country called cancellation of removal. One can’t apply for cancellation of removal unless they’ve been present in the U.S. for ten years,2 but once one is served with a Notice to Appear, the accrual of time towards that ten years stops.3 So whether or not what ICE was handing out met the definition of an NTA would determine whether hundreds of thousands of people would be eligible to apply for legal status. In a case called Pereira v. Sessions,4 the Supreme Court resoundingly held that an NTA without the time and place of hearing was not an NTA, and therefore did not stop the noncitizen from accruing time to reach the 10 years of presence necessary to apply for cancellation of removal.
The BIA’s response was to issue a precedent decision, Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez,5 in which it held that in spite of the Supreme Court’s clear view to the contrary, the combination of the non-NTA and a later-sent document that is also not an NTA containing the missing information together form a valid NTA, which stops the noncitizen from continuing to accrue time towards the ten years.
The matter again reached the Supreme Court, where, at oral argument, Justice Gorsuch referred to the case as “Pereira groundhog day,” and actually asked counsel for the government why it was pursuing the case in light of the Court’s 8-1 decision in Pereira.6 In its 2021 decision in that case, Niz-Chavez v. Garland,7 the Court held that an NTA must be a single document containing all of the required information, and that the two-step method endorsed by the Board does not constitute one valid NTA, and thus will not stop the accrual of time.
Although Pereira and Niz-Chavez involved what is known as the “stop-time rule” described above, the question of proper service of an NTA also arises in other contexts. For those who missed their initial removal hearing and were ordered removed as a result, the Supreme Court decisions seemed to offer a new opportunity.
The reason is because the statute provides for in absentia removal orders only where the noncitizen failed to appear for their hearing “after written notice required under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a) of this title has been provided” to the noncitizen or their lawyer.8 Section 1229(a) is the section of the law that lists the requirements for an NTA to actually be an NTA; it was the specific section interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pereira and Niz-Chavez. Pursuant to those decisions, no one who was issued an NTA lacking a time and place of hearing received proper notice under section 1229(a) of the Act, which specifically requires that the time and place information be provided in a single document. Where notice was not proper, the law allows the filing of a motion to rescind an in absentia order, and further permits the motion to be filed at any time.9
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed this issue of proper notice in a published decision issued in September, Rodriguez v. Garland.10 The decision cited the Supreme Court’s holding in Niz-Chavez, and determined that a single document containing all of the required information (including the time and place) is required in the in absentia context as well. The Fifth Circuit made clear that where the NTA did not contain the time and place, it could not be cured by the mailing of a subsequent notice for in absentia purposes.
Anyone unable to guess the BIA’s response has not been paying attention. The BIA issued Matter of Laparra in order to say that the recipient of an in absentia removal order did in fact receive proper notice pursuant to section 1229(a) even if their NTA lacked a time and place of hearing, as long as the court subsequently sent an entirely different paper days, months, or years later containing the missing information.
How did the BIA believe it could reach this same conclusion yet again in spite of the Supreme Court decisions to the contrary? Please try to follow along as we review the Board’s explanation.
First, the Board emphasized that the statute governing in absentia orders (8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5)(A)) states that such order may be entered “after written notice required under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 239(a) has been provided.” The Board emphasized the words “written notice,” which it distinguished from “a written notice,” which the Supreme Court interpreted to indicate a single document.11 The Board’s position seems to be seriously undermined by the fact that “written notice under paragraphs (1) or (2) of section 239(a)” is subsequently referred to twice more in the same section of the law as “the written notice.”
The Board employed a novel approach here. It dropped a footnote in which it admitted to the two subsequent mentions of “the written notice.” But the Board then said that it reads those two subsequent uses of “the” as simply referring back to the initial “written notice” (without the definite article).12 And apparently, because they are referring to the first mention of “written notice,” the definite article “the” can just be ignored in those other two usages. Why is that? To explain, the Board cited a Supreme Court decision in a non-immigration case decided in 2015, Yates v. U.S.13
Yates involved a fisherman apprehended at sea with a catch containing a large number of undersized fish. However, by the time the ship reached shore, only fish of legal size remained on board. After a long delay, Yates was charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, prohibiting tampering with a “tangible object” in order to impede a federal investigation.
Fish would meet the dictionary definition of “tangible objects.” However, in a decision authored by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court employed a canon of statutory interpretation called noscitur a sociis, under which aid in determining a term’s meaning can derive from the meaning of surrounding terms used in the same section of law.14 As the term “tangible object” in 18 U.S.C. § 1519 is preceded by “makes a false entry in any record, document…,” the Court determined that “tangible object” was meant to refer to items containing records or documents. So tampering with an external hard drive would be covered by the statute; tampering with a fish would not.
This approach has been employed by the BIA (using the closely-related concept of ejusdem generis) in its 1985 decision in Matter of Acosta15 to determine that the term “particular social group” should be defined by an immutable characteristic, the same common denominator found in the surrounding terms of race, religion, nationality, and political opinion. It bears noting that what the Board did in Laparra bears no similarity to the manner in which the canon was applied in either the Board’s earlier usage in Acosta or by the Supreme Court in Yates. In Laparra, there was no comparison to the meaning of surrounding terms; instead, the Board seemed to make a random decision to ignore two usages of the definite article. The only similarity I can see to Yates is that what the Board did seems fishy.
However, even if we do as the Board would like and look only at the first usage of “written notice” contained in section 1229(a)(1), there is still a fatal flaw in the remainder of the Board’s argument. As noted above, the statute in that first usage requires not just any written notice, but specifically, written notice under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a), i.e., the section titled “Notice to appear.” Paragraph (1) of that section begins: “In removal proceedings under section 1229a of this title, written notice (in this section referred to as a “notice to appear”)…” A notice to appear! Paragraph (1) thus clearly refers to a single document, which as the Supreme Court has now told us twice, must contain the time and place of hearing.
Paragraph (2) of that same section says that “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings,” then a written notice shall be provided specifying the new time and place of the proceeding, and the consequences of a failure to appear.
The meaning of paragraph (2) was by no means a matter of first impression for the Board to interpret in Laparra as it saw fit. In its decision in Pereira, the Supreme Court said:
If anything, paragraph (2) of § 1229(a) actually bolsters the Court’s interpretation of the statute. Paragraph (2) provides that, “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of [removal] proceedings,” the Government shall give the noncitizen “written notice . . . specifying . . . the new time or place of the proceedings.” § 1229(a)(2)(A)(i). By allowing for a “change or postponement” of the proceedings to a “new time or place,” paragraph (2) presumes that the Government has already served a “notice to appear under section 1229(a)” that specified a time and place as required by § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). Otherwise, there would be no time or place to “change or postpon[e].”16
We know that the BIA is well aware of this; the above language from Pereira was specifically quoted in the six-judge dissenting opinion in Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, under the heading “Plain Language.”17
Also, in its later decision in Niz-Chavez, the Court stated that “the government could have responded to Pereira by issuing notices to appear with all the information §1229(a)(1) requires—and then amending the time or place information if circumstances required it. After all, in the very next statutory subsection, §1229(a)(2), Congress expressly contemplated that possibility.”18
Thus, the Supreme Court left no doubt in its two decisions that paragraph (2) involves a change in the time and place of hearing that was previously included in the NTA, as the statute requires. Paragraph (2) in no way, shape, or form allows ICE to serve the noncitizen with the L&B Spumoni Gardens menu and then have the immigration court send a second paper that provides a time and place for the first time.
Somehow, the Board chose to ignore this clear and obvious reading twice affirmed by the highest court in the land. Instead, it focused on only one word – the “or” in “paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a).”19 The Board then pretended (can we find a more appropriate word than this?) not only that the “or” somehow allowed paragraph (2) to be read as if paragraph (1) didn’t exist, but also as if the words “any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings” could somehow be read as “change or postponement? What a poor choice of words! What we really meant to say was, ‘the absolutely very first time and place ever set.’ Wasn’t that obvious? We feel so foolish. Please just interpret this any way you see fit.”
The Board did acknowledge the Fifth Circuit’s contrary view in Rodriguez, but attributed it to that court’s failure to focus on the “paragraph (1) or (2)” language.20 Apparently, in the Board’s view, had the Fifth Circuit also focused on that word “or,” it would have reached the same twisted conclusion as the Board. Perhaps realizing how unrealistic this might seem, the Board quickly pointed out that “[i]n any event, Rodriguez does not apply here because this case arises in the First Circuit.”21
Speaking of other circuits, it bears noting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently stated for the second time in a published decision that the BIA’s analysis was “more akin to the argument of an advocate than the impartial analysis of a quasi-judicial agency.”21 I believe that the same can be said of the Board’s decision in Laparra. It will be interesting to see if this issue reaches the Supreme Court for a third time. If so, one should wonder why the Board might expect a different result.
Notes:
28 I&N Dec. 425 (BIA Jan. 18, 2022).
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1), often referred to as the “stop-time rule.”
To be clear, the government is capable of providing all required information in a single NTA. EOIR had provided DHS access to schedule Master Calendar hearings through the agency’s Interactive Scheduling System (ISS), which was employed between those agencies until May 2014. And in a memo issued shortly after the Supreme Court’s Pereira decision, then EOIR Director James McHenry stated that EOIR had begun providing hearing dates to DHS in detailed cases, and was working to again provide it access to ISS for scheduling non-detained cases.
Matter of Laparra, supra at 430.
Id. at 436: “The court reasoned that section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) requires ‘notice’ under ‘section 239(a),’ which Niz-Chavez held must be a single document in the form of a notice to appear. However, the court based this reasoning on a recitation of section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) that omitted the disjunctive phrase ‘paragraph (1) or (2)’ from the statute and relied solely on a reference to ‘section 239(a).’”
Id.
Nsimba v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., No. 20-3565, ___ F.4th ___ (3d Cir. Dec. 22, 2021) (slip. op. at 10).
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
*************************
As Jeffrey points out, the legal and practical problems with notice at EOIR and DHS are chronic, well-documented, and consequential! Yet, given a golden opportunity to make a new start while complying with due process and establishing “best practices” Garland has miserably failed!
Instead of appointing a BIA consisting of “practical scholar expert judges” and competent, professional judicial administrators to clean up this awful mess it’s “same old, same old” under Garland’s poor leadership. Indeed, not only has Garland chosen to retain the very folks who created and aggravated the notice problems, he has actually made it worse! How many times do I have to say it: EOIR is supposed to be a “court of law,” not a highly bureaucratic, “headquarters bloated,” “agency” modeled on and “operating” (a term I use lightly with EOIR) like the very worst aspects of the “Legacy INS.” For Pete’s sake, even DHS has done a somewhat better job of automating files than EOIR!
Tal Kopan Washington Reporter, SF Chronicle. She exposes Garland’s mismanagement of EOIR!
At best, these bogus orders require burdensome motions to reopen, rescheduling, and “restarts” that unnecessarily build backlog. They also generate more bogus statistics and false narratives, more endemic problems at EOIR that Garland has ignored or aggravated.
At worst, improper in absentia orders generate improper arrests, detention, and illegal removals of individuals who were clueless about their actual hearing dates!
Having “supervisors and managers” supposedly in charge of operating a fair hearing system engineer and then “cheer” the absence of any hearings at all shows the depths to which EOIR has plunged under Garland’s poor leadership. But, perhaps that shouldn’t surprise us! It comes from an AG who has failed after nearly a year to re-establish a fair hearing system for asylum applicants at the border and who mounts ethically-challenged defenses of Stephen Miller’s complete eradication of asylum at the border based on a bogus, pretextual rationale rejected by almost all migration and public health experts! Why is this acceptable performance from an alleged Democratic Administration?
Judge Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General Official White House Photo Public Realm. Appointed by a Democrat, he runs the DOJ largely with Trump holdovers, no accountability, and as if Stephen Miller were still looking over his shoulder. The result corrodes the “retail level” of justice in our Immigration Courts and threatens to de-stabilize our entire legal system!
No wonder Garland is building the already incredible 1.6 million case EOIR backlog at a ”new record” pace!
The speculation on Biden’s Supreme Court pick is “sucking all the air out of the room.” But, Garland’s disgraceful failure to counter the Trump AGs’ “packing” of the BIA with unsuitable judges and filling EOIR “senior management” with unqualified individuals who lack the requisite expertise and consistently tilt in favor of DHS Enforcement and against Due Process, fundamental fairness, immigrants’ rights, and best practices will have more immediate corrosive effects on racial justice in America and individual human lives than any court in America outside the Supremes!
And, unlike the Supremes, Garland “owns” all the picks for the “Supreme Court of Immigration!” Rather than standing up for progressive reforms, and giving new progressive judicial talent a chance to shine, he has chosen to enable and empower regressive forces and to frustrate progressive experts, further undermine the rule of law, and thwart best practices!
But, even these somewhat “understated” critics of Garland don’t fully grasp the catastrophic consequences for our entire justice system and our democracy of Garland’s unwillingness and/or inability to prioritize the creation of a progressive due-process/equal-justice-oriented judiciary of experts to replace his regressive, oppressive, deadly, and beyond dysfunctional immigration judiciary at DOJ!
As Jeffrey cogently relates, “same old, same old” failed approaches by “holdover judges” doesn’t “cut it!” Sessions and Barr recognized the cosmic importance of the immigration judiciary and the imperative to “weaponize it for evil” and to use their limited time in office to maximize and further a White Nationalist agenda developed and promoted by Stephen Miller. It’s a pity that Garland has failed to act on the legal and moral imperatives to “mine and realize EOIR’s ‘counter-potential’ for good!”
That potential was memorialized in the long-forgotten “EOIR vision of yore:” “Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!” Remarkably, that “noble due process vision” was once displayed in bold letters on EOIR’s internal website. Now, folks like Garland are too embarrassed and spineless to even admit that such a goal ever existed.
Funny how right-leaning supposed “textualists” and “strict constructionists” have difficulty following clear statutory commands when the result might favor the individual while holding the Government accountable for intentionally violating the law. Also, strange how an Administration that got into office in no small measure by promoting its competence and strong commitment to humane values and equal justice for all, particularly racial justice, continues to fail on all counts! Go figure!
“Supremes? What Supremes? We work for Judge Garland @ DOJ, and he’s very, very tolerant of our anti-immigrant, pro-DHS ‘culture,’ and institutionalized poor decision-making over here at ‘his EOIR!’ Our jobs are safe, and that’s all that matters! To hell with ‘the others!’ ‘Jeffie Gonzo’ and ‘Billy the Bigot’ told us to treat migrants like the ‘trespassers’ and ‘scum of the earth’ they really are! It’s not like OUR families were ever migrants!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Rodriguez v.Garland, 5th Cir., 09-27-21, published
PANEL: Higginbotham, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: Judge Patrick Higginbotham
KEY QUOTE:
The initial NTA did not contain the time and date of Rodriguez’s hearing. The BIA found that the NTA combined with the subsequent NOH containing the time and place of Rodriguez’s hearing “satisfied the written notice requirements of [8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)],” directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of § 1229(a) in Niz-Chavez which made clear that subsequent notices may not cure defects in an initial notice to appear. The BIA applied a “legally erroneous interpretation[].”23
*********************
Judge Higginbotham was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Even conservative Article III Judges aren’t as anxious to snub the Supremes as the BIA.
After all, the BIA works for the Attorney General, not the Supremes. So, who cares whether their decisions comply with the rulings of the Article III Courts, so long as their political “handlers” at the DOJ are pleased with the pro-DHS outcome! That’s what happens when a “captive court” is encouraged to view itself as an extension of their “partners” at DHS enforcement, carrying out the political agenda of their DOJ superiors who control their paychecks and their career destiny!
Wow! It took fewer than three business days for Garland’s latest venture into obtuse anti-immigrant decision-making at the BIA, Matter of Arambula-Bravo, to hit a brick wall! In the 5th Circuit, no less! Back in the “old days” of the “Legacy INS,” it was a very bad sign when we couldn’t “sell” a position to the 5th Circuit!
Have to wonder if Judge Garland would have been so sanguine with the dissing of the Supremes by the BIA if he had actually become “Justice Garland?”
As my esteemed colleague Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase noted, the position adopted by the 5th Circuit in Rodriguez:
is the same argument we [the “Round Table”] made in our recent amicus brief to the Board – in a published decision, the 5th Cir. granted a PFR and vacated the Board’s decision denying a motion to rescind an in absentia order where there was no proper service due to a defective NTA under Niz-Chavez.
By failing to replace the BIA with better qualified progressive expert judges who will issue correct precedents (even when they might benefit immigrants) and require “best practices” in the now-totally-dysfunctional Immigration Courts, Garland is further building backlog by generating thousands of unnecessary remands and reopenings. How long will it take him to reach the 2 million case mark?
“Bogus dedicated dockets,” gross misuse of the discredited “Title 42” rationale to deny due process, increased use of “expedited removal,” proposals to “rubber stamp” asylum and credible fear denials, badly skewed pro-enforcement interpretations that throw the fate of hundreds of thousands of cases into the Circuits and the Supremes aren’t going to solve the problem!
Never underestimate the adverse effects of bad judging, particularly in a high volume system where incorrect precedents result in wrong decisions in hundreds of cases every day! Conversely, you can’t overestimate the positive potential of progressive expert judges who would get the results correct at the “retail level;” force some badly needed quality control, discipline, and consistency at both EOIR and DHS; and solve problems rather than creating them!
Sadly, Garland doesn’t “get it!” And that will be a continuing unmitigated disaster for our democracy and our justice system! Such a lost opportunity!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick B. Garland? “Not my friends, relatives, or attorney buddies whose lives are being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their ‘scuzzy, unimportant immigration lawyers,’ so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Obviously, THESE are the practical scholar/immigration experts who belong on the BIA:
Kit Johnson Associate Professor of Law University of Oklahoma Law SchoolProfessor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of Arambula-Bravo, 28 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2021). Here is the summary:
(1) A Notice to Appear that does not specify the time and place of a respondent’s initial removal hearing does not deprive the Immigration Judge of jurisdiction over the respondent’s removal proceedings. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), distinguished; Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018), and Matter of Rosales Vargas and Rosales Rosales, 27 I&N Dec. 745 (BIA 2020), followed.
(2) A Notice to Appear that lacks the time and place of a respondent’s initial removal hearing constitutes a “charging document” as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.13 (2021), and is sufficient to terminate a noncitizen’s grant of parole under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i) (2021).
I am hardly the only one to argue that such an NTA should deprive the court of jurisdiction. Immprof Geoffrey Hoffman (Houston), frequent contributor to this blog, submitted an amicus brief to the BIA on this case arguing that an NTA without time or place information is “defective” under Niz-Chavez and cannot be cured by the later issuance of a Notice of Hearing.
Now the waiting game for SCOTUS intervention begins again. I’m hoping for another scathing opinion by Justice Gorsuch. His Niz-Chavez decision was fire.
-KitJ
*******************
INA section 239(a) defines a Notice to Appear, the document used to initiate a removal proceeding in Immigration Court, as including, among other statutory requirements: “G)(i) The time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” Could not be clearer!
The requirements of section 239(a) are hardly onerous. Indeed, several decades ago, the Government had developed an “interactive scheduling system” that allowed DHS to specify the exact time, place, and date of a respondent’s initial Master Calendar hearing in Immigration Court.
However, rather than expanding and improving that system, DHS and EOIR decided to cut corners to accommodate the “uber enforcement” agendas pushed by Administrations of both parties over the past two decades. Their “haste makes waste, good enough for Government work approach” led them to ignore the requirements for a proper NTA and instead issue “piecemeal notices.”
This, of course, increased the unnecessary workload for already-stressed, overwhelmed EOIR Immigration Court clerks, resulted in many more defective notices, more unnecessary bogus “failures to appear,” more improper “in absentia removal orders,” more Motions to Reopen those wrongfully issued orders, and more appeals from improper failures to grant such motions. It also sent more of these preliminary matters into the Circuit Courts for judicial review.
Basically, it’s a microcosm of how an unconstitutional, non-independent “wholly owned court system” “pretzels itself” to accommodate DHS enforcement, misconstrues the law, and attempts to legitimize “worst practices” to please its political overlords, thereby creating endless and largely avoidable case backlogs — now at an astounding 1.4 million cases!
Even worse, when the backlogs finally capture public attention and “hit the fan,” EOIR, DHS, and DOJ disingenuously attempt to shift the blame and the consequences for their failures onto the VICTIMS: respondents and their long-suffering, often pro bono, attorneys! The incompetents at EOIR then cut even more corners and issue more bad precedents misconstruing the law in an attempt to cover up their own wrongdoing and that of their political masters. The latter’s understanding of how to run an efficient, due-process oriented, fair and impartial court system could be put in a thimble with space left over!
The vicious cycle of unfairness, injustice, and incompetence at EOIR continues endlessly, toward oblivion.
As Kit cogently points out, better interpretations, ones that complied with the statute and could be tailored to achieve practical solutions were available and actually submitted to the BIA. The BIA, as usual, brushed them off in favor of trying to please DHS and avoid both the statutory language and the Supremes’ clear direction.
So, something that a properly comprised BIA, composed of true progressive immigration experts and practical scholars, could have solved in a legal and practical manner, will undoubtedly head to the Supremes for a third time. We might not know the result for years, during which the BIA’s bad interpretation will generate additional potential backlog as well as unjust removals.
For the reasons provided above, in absentia orders involving proceedings commenced through a defective NTA are rendered invalid by Niz-Chavez. This is true whether the Board ultimately determines that the decision impacts the Immigration Courts’ jurisdiction, or is in the alternative a claim-processing rule.
**************************
Thanks so much, “Sir Jeffrey,” my friend and colleague!
Unfortunately, the recent practice of the BIA has been to construe Supreme Court decisions favoring respondents narrowly against them in Immigration Court. Thus, the BIA has needlessly protracted litigation, produced conflicting results, and lessened justice, all while dramatically increasing backlogs. We’ll see whether that practice, apparently designed to appease and please DHS Enforcement and litigators at the DOJ, holds true here.
“The NTA sent to Villegas de Mendez does not contain the information required to trigger the stop-time rule. See id. at 1478-79, 1485; see also § 1229(a)(1)(A)-(G). Neither does the subsequent notice of hearing sent to her. Thus, she did not receive the “single compliant document” required by statute. Niz-Chavez, 141 S. Ct. at 1485. The BIA consequently abused its discretion by committing an error of law. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996); Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 958 (5th Cir. 2019); Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014). Therefore, the petition for review is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further consideration in light of Niz-Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 1474, and consistent with this judgment.”
One major problem with constantly going with DHS interpretations is that many are both legally wrong and practical disasters. After the initial Pereira v. Sessions debacle the BIA had a chance to solve the problem. Instead, undoubtedly spurred on by the “deny everything culture” promoted by the Trump regime’s White Nationalist agenda, the BIA chose the worst possible legal interpretation with disruptive practical implications. Any real immigration expert could have seen this coming!
When was the last time in a potential “Chevron-type” situation that the BIA or the AG adopted the migrant’s proffered interpretation rather than DHS’s? Yet even with all the (in my view highly inappropriate) advantages conferred on the Government by the Supremes’ intellectual indolence in Chevron and its absurdist companion “Brand X,” Article III Courts, including the Supremes, reject BIA/AG interpretations on a regular basis. Pereira and Niz-Chavez are just two of the most prominent recent examples.
Moreover, because neither the AGs nor the BIA are respected experts in immigration and human rights, and, shockingly, none have significant experience representing individuals in Immigration Court, the mis-interpretations that they choose are often impractical and unworkable. This, in turn leads to confusion, unnecessary remands, and unmanageable backlogs, not to mention patent injustice and deadly results for the mere humanscaught up in this ongoing disaster! This is what “Dred Scottifcation” is all about!
The case highlighted above should have been reopened in 2017. In a “real” court system, with qualified judges, professional administration, and no political interference, it could have been completed by now. Instead, it’s no closer to completion than it was four years ago!
But, lots of time and resources have been wasted in defending the BIA’s wrong attempt to deny reopening! This nonsense by the Government, NOT dilatory tactics by migrants and their attorneys trying to navigate this intentionally user-unfriendly and often illegal and illogical system, is what “builds backlog!”
Indeed, a wiser system would have turned preliminary adjudication of these cases over to USCIS so that only those that could not be granted and were not appropriate for prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) would have been sent to Immigration Court. Virtually none of the “non-LPR cancellation” cases are legitimate enforcement priorities. A similar approach was used with the NACARA program under better overall management.
Instead, as a result of poor BIA decision-making and even worse “leadership” at the Trump DOJ, this case is no closer to a final resolution than it was in 2017. And, DHS and EOIR still haven’t systemically corrected the completely fixable practical problems that generated Pereira and Niz-Chavez in the first place. Nor have Garland and Mayorkas announced systemic plans for removing the unnecessary “cancellation backlog” from Immigration Court dockets even though they would be “low priorities” for ICE under the criteria announced by OPLA’s John Trasvina!
That’s why we have unmanageable backlogs! And they will continue until Garland cleans house at EOIR, brings in a diverse group of qualified expert judges, and empowers them to act independently, stand up to the frequent nonsense pushed by DHS, and “laser focus” on due process for individuals and instituting and enforcing best practices!
One of the most obvious of those “best practices,” totally missing from Garland’s mismanaged Immigration Courts to date, would be returning “docket control” to local Immigration Courts and ending the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by EOIR Headquarters and DOJ politicos that has helped generate the out of control backlog.
Many cancellation of removal cases could and should be “administratively closed.” But, inexplicably, Garland has yet to revoke Sessions’s ridiculously wrong Matter of Castro-Tum, and restore to Immigration Judges their power to administratively close cases. That’s notwithstanding that Castro-Tum has been rejected in whole or in part by every Circuit Court of Appeals to consider it.
How long is Garland going to continue to “sponsor” inferior, non-independent, pro-DHS “judging” and amateurish, politicized mismanagement that is destroying our entire legal system?
Congrats to Ted, and thanks for passing this along! (I never tire of having an excuse for using this picture from the “Courtside Archives!”)
”Well, he never was one to “‘go along to get along!’” Hon. Thomas “Frosty the Snowman” Snow, flanked by Hon. John Milo “JB” Bryant (in the funny looking dark, non-conforming suit) and by Judge Rodger B. “Marine” Harris and me departing for my last “Thursday Judges’ Lunch” on the day of my retirement, June 30, 2016.
A fascinating twist on the factual scenario in Niz-Chavez is what to do if your client had an NTA with a so-called “fake date.” The “fake date” problem is one you will remember well if you practice immigration law before EOIR, and it garnered national attention in 2019 when ICE issued these fake dates for thousands of immigrants, many of whom showed up in court only to find that there was nothing on any judge’s docket to indicate they were scheduled for a hearing that day. Reports of fake dates were prevalent in Dallas, Orlando, Miami, Seattle, and I am sure other places as well. See news articles such as this one. In addition, and as a separate matter, there was a well-known so-called “parking date” (November 29) issued on thousands of NTAs and that was also never a “real date” as everyone knew.
There is an interesting theory about why the “fake dates” were issued in the first place: that the government was trying to respond to Pereira v. Sessions itself. Despite its argument in federal court to try to restrict Pereira as much as possible, in practice ICE tacitly was affirming, so the argument goes, that in Pereira the Supreme Court had defined, as we have argued all along, what is and what is not a proper and valid NTA. In an effort to immunize itself from responsibility for defective NTAs without any time or place of hearing, ICE thought it might make sense to input “fake dates” in their NTAs, thus (at least superficially it would seem) immunizing itself from the argument that the NTAs were defective for “lack” of a real date and place. Then the “real date” – according to the argument – could be issued as a follow-up in the form of a notice of hearing by EOIR.
The question now arises whether clients with fake-date NTAs can utilize Pereira and now Niz-Chavez to defeat the “stop-time” effect for cancellation of removal, where such fake NTAs existed, even where there is a subsequent notice of hearing with a “real date” from EOIR. The short answer is “Yes” – and I will discuss in the rest of this article why this should be the case and why it should not come as a surprise for several reasons.
It is arguably a much stronger case for the application of Niz-Chavez because the issuance of a “fake date” that was never intended to be used by EOIR in any way is affirmatively wrong. It is not just mere negligence by leaving “TBA” with a blank date and place of hearing on the NTA. ICE should not be able to hide behind an NTA where the information is filled in on the NTA but the information is patently false and made up or fabricated. Just as an asylum seeker who fabricates a date or other information on their forms cannot benefit from such information in applying for relief before the court, the government should get no benefit either from their incorrect and misleading actions. The counter-argument from the government will be that the NTA was valid “on its face” since it had some “date and place” in the document and therefore (a) stopped time for cancellation purposes and (b) conferred jurisdiction because it was “facially” valid.
This counter-argument is flawed. To embrace such a rationale would exalt form over substance. It also would allow an agency to game the system. It would also defeat the very mechanism that the Supreme Court set out in Pereira and now Niz-Chavez. Respondent should be entitled to reopen their proceedings in all “fake date” cases since a valid NTA was not filed in the immigration court. The only remaining issue will be proof. The respondent and his or her attorney will have to prove there was no hearing that was actually held on that day. If no hearing existed at all, then the stop time rule should not apply and the fake NTA cannot be “cured” by a subsequently issued notice by a different agency, that is EOIR, as per Niz-Chavez.
Finally, in reopening a client’s case it would be helpful if there were a showing of some effort on the part the respondent to check. Proof may be difficult and EOIR FOIA and other investigation will be important. Ideally, the client or the their attorney or both went to court but no hearing was on the docket that day, and there was an effort to check that was documented in some way. If there never was receipt of the NTA at all, whether containing a fake date or not, and an in absentia order was issued, then the question becomes whether jurisdiction could have vested at all in such a case. As I have argued, if the NTA is defective it cannot result in the vesting of jurisdiction. A fake date and place arguably cannot confer jurisdiction, even if the NTA was filed with the court. Since there was no hearing actually scheduled the NTA should be found defective under Pereira and Niz-Chavez.
K[evin] J[ohnson]
********************
Sure sounds to me like ‘affirmative misconduct” by the USG that should stop them from relying on the “fake dates. In the “old days,” INS actually used to settle potential “affirmative misconduct” cases, rather than litigate.
By contrast, today’s DOJ seems perfectly willing shamelessly to defend a wide range of legally and ethically questionable conduct and then “blow off” criticism from the Article III Judiciary. Recently, a frustrated U.S. District Judge referred to Bureau of Prisons officials as “idiots.”
One might have thought that would have spurred some type of apology and corrective action from the DOJ. But, that doesn’t seem to have registered with Garland. He just keeps rolling along with Barr’s “Miller Lite” appointments while dissing advice from progressives who actually helped put him in his current job. About the only thing you can count on from Dems is that when it comes to progressive immigraton reforms and EOIR, they’ll blow it!
Thanks, Geoffrey, for your timely and creative “practical scholarship.” Of course with better leadership, the Biden Administration could solve this problem without protracted litigation that often takes years and produces inconsistent results before the Supremes or Congress can resolve them. In the meantime, lives unnecessarily are ruined and the system becomes more inefficient and unfair.
Garland should appoint progressive practical scholars like Geoffrey to the BIA and senior management at EOIR, OIL, OLP, and the SG’s Office and let them “lead from above” — rather than having to fight bad interpretations and worst practices from the outside.
In this case, the DHS/EOIR “fake date policy” was both fraudulent and unethical. Remember that some folks actually showed up at Immigration Court buildings, often with families in tow, after having traveled hundreds of miles, @ 3:00 AM on Sunday mornings (or on a Federal Holiday or some other bogus date) only to find out that the “joke” was on them.
And, let’s not forget folks, that thanks to the BIA’s permissive attitude (when it comes to the Government, but not with individual rights), under the now “being phased out” “Remain in Mexico Program” (a/k/a “let “em Die In Mexico”), folks basically got NTAs with the equivalent of this: “Maria Gomez, somewhere on some Calle in Tijuana, Mexico.” But, the BIA said that this was basically “good enough for Government work.”
We should also remember that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees the individual’s rights against the Government, not the other way around! But, you sure wouldn’t know that from reading BIA and AG precedents issued under the Trump kakistocracy.
Meanwhile, IJs and the BIA under Garland continue to “in absentia” folks for being a few minutes late for a hearing or misreading an NTA in a language they can’t understand. Anybody had a problem with their U.S. Mail lately? We have, in our “upper middle class neighborhood” in Alexandria, VA. Yet, EOIR and some Article IIIs continue to promote the “legal fiction” of a “presumption of proper (and timely) delivery” of notices sent by regular U.S. Mail.
Until, Garland has the backbone to restore ethics and the rule of law at EOIR and the rest of the DOJ, particularly by reassigning or otherwise removing those who “went along to get along” and replacing them with ethical, qualified, experts from the NDPA who will speak truth to power and hold immigration enforcement bureaucrats accountable, our justice system will continue its tailspin!
NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 19–863. Argued November 9, 2020—Decided April 29, 2021
Nonpermanent resident aliens ordered removed from the United States under federal immigration law may be eligible for discretionary relief if, among other things, they can establish their continuous presence in the country for at least 10 years. 8 U. S. C. §1229b(b)(1). But the so- called stop-time rule included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) provides that the pe- riod of continuous presence “shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear” in a removal proceeding under §1229a. §1229b(d)(1). The term “notice to appear” is defined as “written notice . . . specifying” certain information, such as the charges against the al- ien and the time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held. §1229(a)(1). A notice that omits any of this statutorily required information does not trigger the stop-time rule. See Pereira v. Ses- sions, 585 U. S. ___. Here, the government ordered the removal of pe- titioner Agusto Niz-Chavez and sent him a document containing the charges against him. Two months later, it sent a second document, providing Mr. Niz-Chavez with the time and place of his hearing. The government contends that because the two documents collectively specified all statutorily required information for “a notice to appear,” Mr. Niz-Chavez’s continuous presence in the country stopped when he was served with the second document.
Held: A notice to appear sufficient to trigger the IIRIRA’s stop-time rule is a single document containing all the information about an individ- ual’s removal hearing specified in §1229(a)(1). Pp. 4–12.
(a) Section 1229b(d)(1) states that the stop-time rule is triggered by serving “a notice,” and §1229(a)(1) explains that “written notice” is “re- ferred to as a ‘notice to appear.’ ” Congress’s decision to use the indef- inite article “a” suggests it envisioned “a” single notice provided at a
2
NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND Syllabus
discrete time rather than a series of notices that collectively provide the required information. While the indefinite article “a” can some- times be read to permit multiple installments (such as “a manuscript” delivered over months), that is not true for words like “notice” that can refer to either a countable object (“a notice”) or a noncountable abstrac- tion (“sufficient notice”). The inclusion of an indefinite article suggests Congress used “notice” in its countable sense. More broadly, Congress has used indefinite articles to describe other case-initiating plead- ings—such as an indictment, an information, or a civil complaint, see, e.g., Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 7(a), (c)(1), (e); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 3—and none suggest those documents might be delivered by installment. Nor does the Dictionary Act aid the government, as that provision merely tells readers of the U. S. Code to assume “words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things.” 1 U. S. C. §1. That provision means only that terms describing a single thing (“a no- tice”) can apply to more than one of that thing (“ten notices”). While it certainly allows the government to send multiple notices to appear to multiple people, it does not mean a notice to appear can consist of mul- tiple documents. Pp. 4–9.
(b) The IIRIRA’s structure and history support requiring the govern- ment to issue a single notice containing all the required information. Two related provisions, §§1229(e)(1) and 1229a(b)(7), both use a defi- nite article with a singular noun (“the notice”) when referring to the government’s charging document—a combination that again suggests a discrete document. Another provision, §1229(a)(2)(A), requires “a written notice” when the government wishes to change an alien’s hear- ing date. The government does not argue that this provision contem- plates providing “the new time or place of the proceedings” and the “consequences . . . of failing . . . to attend such proceedings” in separate documents. Yet the government fails to explain why “a notice to ap- pear” should operate differently. Finally, the predecessor to today’s “notice to appear” required the government to specify the place and time for the alien’s hearing “in the order to show cause or otherwise.” §1252(a)(2)(A). The phrase “or otherwise” has since disappeared, fur- ther suggesting that the required details must be included upfront to invoke the stop-time rule. Indeed, that is how the government itself initially read the statute. The year after Congress adopted IIRIRA, in the preamble to a proposed rule implementing these provisions, the government acknowledged that “the language of the amended Act in- dicat[es] that the time and place of the hearing must be on the Notice to Appear.” 62 Fed. Reg. 449 (1997). Pp. 9–13.
(c) The government claims that not knowing hearing officers’ avail- ability when it initiates removal proceedings makes it difficult to pro-duce compliant notices. It also claims that it makes little sense to re- quire time and place information in a notice to appear when that in- formation may be later changed. Besides, the government stresses, its own administrative regulations have always authorized its current practice. But on the government’s account, it would be free to send a person who is not from this country—someone who may be unfamiliar with English and the habits of American bureaucracies—a series of letters over the course of weeks, months, maybe years, each containing a new morsel of vital information. Congress could reasonably have wished to foreclose that possibility. And ultimately, pleas of adminis- trative inconvenience never “justify departing from the statute’s clear text.” Pereira, 585 U. S., at ___. The modest threshold Congress pro- vided to invoke the stop-time rule is clear from the text and must be complied with here. Pp. 13–16.
789 Fed. Appx. 523, reversed.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined.
*************************
This is the type of case where I had hoped that Justice Gorsuch would “stick to his interpretative guns” by stopping the Government from basically redesigning clear statutory requirements “willy nilly” to suit their own purposes and disadvantage respondents. And, he came through! Big time! I’ve been critical of Justice Gorsuch in the past and am likely to be so again in the future. But, in this case, he did the right thing, and I, for one, am grateful!
Most encouraging, Justice Gorsuch “got” the way that the DHS and EOIR, with the deck already unfairly stacked in their favor, manipulate clear legal requirements for their own nefarious purposes and to the disadvantage of those struggling for justice in an inherently unfair system. There is absolutely no doubt that receiving “piecemeal notice” — incomplete and often sent to incorrect addresses or “personally served” without the proper reading and explanations — works to further disadvantage respondents.
Indeed, illegal, ineffective notices — some setting hearings on “phantom dates” and “imaginary times” — lead directly to an over abundance of “in absentia” orders and consequent illegal removals. Some unrepresented individuals understand how to reopen their hearings for lack of notice — but many are clueless; the Government system strives to keep them that way to “jack up the numbers,” meet “quotas,” and improve stats. Worse yet, Congress sometimes uses the “bogus stats” generated by DOJ and DHS to write legislation, conduct oversight, and establish policy. This is an astoundingly broken, dysfunctional, and intentionally unfair system — a disgrace to our entire justice system and our national conscience each day it is allowed to continue to operate in its abusive ways!
The majority in this case was both very interesting, and at least mildly encouraging, for those of us who believe in due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, including migrants, under law. In addition to Trump appointees Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett, another GOP conservative appointee, Justice Thomas, joined Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor in the majority!
And, although this case has (incorrectly) seemed “hyper technical” to some Supremes’ watchers unfamiliar with immigration, it will have huge impact — forcing reopening and “redos” in tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of cases in the already backlogged (1.3 million cases) Immigration Court. That will be the direct result of poor jurisprudence by the BIA, lousy court administration by EOIR, and horrible policy decisions by DHS.
Just another prime example of how “haste makes waste” enforcement gimmicks continue to cause unnecessary chaos in the system. Why not just appoint progressive experts as Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges. Qualified jurists who will understand immigration law, due process, and “get in right” in the first instance? Certainly seems like a reasonable approach. What is Judge Garland waiting for?
This, in turn should add to the already loud cries (from virtually everywhere outside Judge Garland’s universe and the restrictionist right) for sensible, readily available backlog reductions and accelerated movement toward better judges and independence in the Immigration Courts, not to mention better management in the DHS enforcement programs.
Here’s my favorite quote from Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion:
In the end, though, all this speculation is beside the point. The dissent tries to predict how the government will react to a ruling that requires it to follow the law and then pro- ceeds to assess the resulting “costs” and “benefits.” Post, at 17, 20–21. But that kind of raw consequentialist calcula- tion plays no role in our decision. Instead, when it comes to the policy arguments championed by the parties and the dissent alike, our points are simple: As usual, there are (at least) two sides to the policy questions before us; a rational Congress could reach the policy judgment the statutory text suggests it did; and no amount of policy-talk can overcome a plain statutory command. Our only job today is to give the law’s terms their ordinary meaning and, in that small way, ensure the federal government does not exceed its statutory license. Interpreting the phrase “a notice to ap-pear” to require a single notice—rather than 2 or 20 docu- ments—does just that.
*
At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms en- sure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir- cuit is
Reversed.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
And, here’s some “immediate commentary” by Round Table spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
Victory!This was the case in which our Round Table amicus brief was specifically referenced in oral argument.
Knightess of the Round Table
Congrats to all involves, and Due Process Forever!
