"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.
“Justice” — While totally unjustifiable, it’s perhaps understandable why A.G. Merrick Garland wants to suppress criticism from IJs of his courts’ failure to provide due process and uphold the rights of asylum seekers at the border and elsewhere! It’s a major driver of disorder at the border!
Two items from the indomitable Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis:
“LEXISNEXIS EXCLUSIVE: How Low Will They Go? – An Outraged Retired IJ Speaks (Because She Can)”
This broad edict applies even when a judge seeks to speak at an event in their personal capacity and agrees to provide a clear disclaimer that the views expressed do not
reflect an official position of EOIR or DOJ. It means a judge cannot explain the basics of immigration law to a church group interested in sponsoring refugees or even a middle
school civics class. The application of this process to NAIJ officers ignores the well known fact that many reporters operate on deadlines of mere hours and do not provide their questions in advance. It is also hard to understand how EOIR dismisses the clear disclaimer, scrupulously provided, that NAIJ comments do not represent the Department’s views.
Perhaps most puzzling about this turn of events is how this step can be taken during the Biden administration, one which says it seeks to empower federal workers and their
unions. It is simply breathtaking in the worst of ways that the DOJ through EOIR is taking this step in clear violation of the First Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that federal employees don’t check their First Amendment rights at the door when they accept employment. To the contrary, the Court has
recognized the unique “special value” to the public of speech by public employees on matters related to their employment. In stark contrast to EOIR’s position, the Code of
Conduct for U.S. Judges affirmatively encourages federal judges to speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system and
the administration of justice. And whatever happened to whistleblower protections? Are they suspended when they reveal information which can be viewed as critical of an agency?
In defense of its action, EOIR cites the tepid, generic excuse that it is merely promoting the efficiency of the service it is charged with performing. It asserts that using personal
capacity speech (as opposed to official speech by its designated spokespersons), even with a disclaimer, can have real adverse effects on the agency’s mission. It claims that
the SET process was established to promote public confidence in IJ impartiality, despite clear Supreme Court guidance that judicial partiality is narrowly defined as a lack of bias
for or against a party in the proceeding. If that is not clear enough, that standard was set forth in a decision which protected the rights of judicial candidates to announce their
views on disputed legal or political issues, a bridge NAIJ officers never cross because NAIJ is a nonpolitical professional organization whose members’ personal viewpoints
span the spectrum.
EOIR’s gag order against NAIJ officers is an outrageous and dangerous policy that should not go unnoticed and unremedied. Those of us who can speak must speak out
and take action to prevent this policy change from being continued.”
The Honorable Dana Leigh Marks (retired) served as an Immigration Judge in San Francisco from January 1987 until December 2021. During her tenure she was an active member of NAIJ from the start, serving seven two-year terms as President and two two-year terms as Vice President. Since ending her term as president in 2017 she has served as President Emerita of NAIJ. The opinions expressed here are her personal ones and are not intended to set forth the formal position of NAIJ on the matters discussed. To hear their views, you will have to contact its officers. Uh oh. I guess you can’t…….
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges, Member of The Round Table of Former IJs.
2. ACROSS THE BOARD OUTRAGE: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Sends Garland Scathing Letter: “Completely Unacceptable!”
I write to you regarding concerning allegations that the Biden Justice Department is unlawfully attempting to prohibit its employees from making legally protected disclosures to Congress. It’s been reported that the Justice Department Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Chief Immigration Judge Sheila McNulty issued an order on February 15, 2024, prohibiting immigration judges from speaking publicly without prior agency approval.1 The news report claims that the issuance of this order comes as some immigration judges have spoken out publicly on significant case backlogs at the immigration court, testified before Congress, participated in panel discussions, and made themselves available to the media.2 It’s been reported that the order prohibits immigration judges from speaking with Congress without prior agency approval, and it’s speculated that Chief Immigration Judge McNulty issued this directive in response to the testimony Immigration Judge Mimi Tsankov gave before Congress last fall.3 In that October 18, 2023, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Tsankov said that the Justice Department lacked leadership and was ineffective in its management of the immigration courts.4 It’s critically important that immigration judges communicate with Congress particularly when the Biden administration’s leadership and policy failures have created an unprecedented immigration crisis at our Southern Border. If the allegations that the Justice Department has sought to silence immigration judges from communicating with and testifying before Congress are true and accurate, the Biden Justice Department’s conduct is absolutely unacceptable.
. . . .
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Official Photo
***************************
Read the full statements of Judge Marks and Sen.Grassley at the links above.
Thanks for speaking out, Dana, my friend and Round Table colleague! As Dana points out, the Speaking Engagement Team (“SET”) process acts to deter IJs from public speaking at educational and other events. It’s an example of how within DOJ, EOIR “management” gets sidetracked with creating unnecessary bureaucratic “gatekeepers” and “handlers” rather than focusing on due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and quality control! Those are the things that are broken at EOIR.
Also, well-known immigration commentator Nolan Rappaport provided the following helpful resource on Federal employee rights to communicate with Congress:
Instead, Garland, once again, has unnecessarily and incompetently, stepped into a “hornet’s nest!” And, the Biden Administration, inexplicably and indolently, has allowed him to do so. Sen.Grassley is “spot on” in this letter. And, that’s something I don’t often say.
Now, if the Senator will just call up his colleague Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) and get behind the Article I legislation effort, the problem can be solved in a bipartisan manner that will give a huge boost to the quality of justice in America! The evidence that EOIR is not “viable” within DOJ or any other Executive Agency is overwhelming. This is just a graphic illustration of why we need the Article I change that Judge Mimi Tsankov, (Ret) Judge Dana Marks, and many other experts and legislators have been supporting before Congress and in other public forums! See, e.g., https://youtu.be/MEJ093pDGI4%C2%A0.
In the interim, the Administration should immediately appoint an “Immigration Czar” and expert task force along the lines recommended by Heidi Altman of NIJC to supersede Garland’s and Mayorkas’s incompetent and damaging “management” of existing migration programs and policies and lay the groundwork for a smooth transition to Art 1. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-9PM.
DISCLOSURE: I am a proud retired member of the NAIJ.
States can’t use the federal courts to try to force the federal government to arrest and deport more people who are in the country illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The 8-1 decision could cut down on a flood of lawsuits recent administrations have faced from state attorneys general and governors who disagree with Washington on immigration and crime policy.
The high court’s ruling found that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to pursue litigation challenging immigration enforcement priorities established by President Joe Biden’s administration soon after he took office.
It’s the second decision in eight days in which the Supreme Court has rejected lawsuits from Texas on standing grounds. Last week, the court ruled that the state did not have standing to challenge a federal law that gives preferences to Native American families in the adoptions of Native children.
Six states are challenging the debt-relief plan, but it’s not clear if the states have suffered the sort of concrete harm that is typically necessary to challenge a policy in court. (In a separate case, two student-loan borrowers who oppose the plan are also suing. Their legal standing is also contested.)
In the immigration case, critics of the states’ approach said their claim of likely financial injury from unwarranted release of undocumented migrants was murky. But the court’s majority opinion written, by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, took a different tack and said the case was flawed because of a general principle against suits trying to force the executive branch to enforce the law against someone else.
“This Court has consistently recognized that federal courts are generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more prosecutions,” Kavanaugh wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberals. “If the Court green-lighted this suit, we could anticipate complaints in future years about alleged Executive Branch under-enforcement of any similarly worded laws — whether they be drug laws, gun laws, obstruction of justice laws, or the like. We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path.”
I suppose whether you “like” or “hate” this decision depends on who is in power and what you think about them. As my friend and immigration commentator Nolan Rappaport told me, immigrants’ rights advocates might cheer this decision today, but will not be happy if Trump is elected and they can no longer team up with Democrat State AGs to challenge alleged abuses of prosecutorial authority by Trump’s Administration.
Recognizing Nolan’s point that the “sword cuts both ways,” I think this is the correct result. Perhaps, that’s because it’s a derivation of a long line of cases on prosecutorial discretion that we often successfully invoked during my time in the “Legacy INS” OGC. Also, it seems correct from a “separation of powers” standpoint.
One of the cases that the Court relied upon is Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614 (1973). Interestingly, that case, then relatively recently decided, was one of the many I cited in the July 15, 1976 opinion that I drafted for then General Counsel Sam Bernsen approving the INS’s use of prosecutorial discretion.See https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Bernsen-Memo-service-exercise-pd.pdf.
The “Bernsen opinion” (FN 8) cited the various Lennon cases and made reference to Leon’s article in Interpreter Releases (1976) on the topic.
After five decades of working in the immigration field in different positions and different levels, I think it’s always interesting how things from my “early career” still have relevance today!
Indeed, although you wouldn’t know it from the mainstream media and the “alternate universe debate” now going on in Congress, the GOP claims of “open borders” and lack of immigration enforcement are total BS. In fact, the Biden Administration has far “out-deported” and “out-enforced” the Trump Administration. See, e.g., https://amsterdamnews.com/news/2024/01/03/deportation-numbers-under-biden-surpass-trumps-record/.
As experts and those who actually work with migrants at the border know, “enforcement only” doesn’t work at the border or anywhere else, although it does fuel political movements and powerful corporate interests. See, e.g., .https://open.substack.com/pub/theborderchronicle/p/prepare-yourselves-for-the-2024-border?r=1se78m&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post. But, truth, rationality, humanity, expertise, and the rule of law are largely absent from today’s one-sided immigration discussions. That doesn’t bode well for the future of our nation or the world.
The stories of child migrant laborers are harrowing. They take on late-night, early-morning or 12-hour shifts that keep them out of school. They work on farms, at garment and food manufacturing factories as well as meat and processing plants, in construction and sawmills — often dangerous jobs with few protections.
Despite media portrayals of this system as a new economy, historian Ivón Padilla-Rodríguez has documented that the success of industries such as agriculture, manufacturing and construction in the Southwest relied on child labor as far back as the early 20th century. My dad arrived in Los Angeles from El Salvador as a 17-year-old in the 1970s. He immediately became a garment worker in denim factories across downtown Los Angeles and later installed carpet for a man who refused to pay him.
Los Angeles remains a center for this problem. My research studies the lives of undocumented young adults who arrived in the U.S. as unaccompanied minors from 2003 through 2013 and now live in L.A. I’ve spoken to children who have worked in garment factories that sew clothes for companies including Forever 21, J. Crew and Old Navy. Others worked in hotels such as the Ritz Carlton downtown or cleaned the homes of the rich and famous as live-in domestic workers.
Given my research focus, I often get asked what the government is doing about this child labor epidemic and what regular people can do about it. My response: It depends how far you want to go.
Perhaps counterintuitively to many Americans, part of the equation is paying attention to these youth before they cross our border by granting them what anthropologist Lauren Heidbrink and other scholars identify as “el derecho a no migrar” — the right not to migrate.
Young people need alternatives to migration to make a living. That shouldn’t mean aiding foreign governments in deporting migrants, as the Biden administration recently pledged to aid Panama’s government. It should mean investing in community-based programming to integrate children into their home society, such as Colectivo Vida Digna in Guatemala, which aims to reduce youth migration by supporting Indigenous teens and their families in reclaiming Indigenous cultural practices and strengthening communities so they can build futures without leaving their home country.
Even with those programs, some children will migrate to the U.S. and need shielding from exploitation. That may sound uncontroversial in theory, but the current policy landscape shows little willingness to widen the social safety net in practice, even for children and youth.
Take, for example, that last month a federal judge ruled illegal, but declined to end, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a program implemented by executive order in 2012 that offers work authorization and a stay on deportation for undocumented youth brought to the U.S. as children. Courts have debated the policy for more than a decade, and with the Supreme Court expected to review the policy a third time, even these longtime U.S. residents — once touted by President Obama as “talented, driven, patriotic young people” — are left in limbo.
Then there’s the immigration program meant to provide vulnerable immigrant children a path to lawful residence and citizenship: the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status designation created in 1990. A recent report found that it has produced “avoidable delays, inconsistent denial rates, and a growing backlog” of petitioners, putting unaccompanied youth’s lives “on hold” and leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.
All the while, states across the U.S. are actively moving to weaken child labor laws for all children, immigrants or not.
Children’s futures are under threat in the U.S., and stalled immigration policy is a culprit. Protecting children and child workers requires moving forward on immigration. Failing to do so may haunt us for generations to come.
Stephanie L. Canizales is an assistant professor of sociology at UC Merced.
***************************
Jennifer Podkul Vice President of Policy & Advocacy Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”) PHOTO: Momsrising.com
The figures in the Oct. 20 news article “Child labor violations soar in FY 2023” were staggering and all too familiar in my work with unaccompanied children, who are particularly vulnerable to exploitative labor conditions. Overnight shifts operating heavy machinery at slaughterhouses are not jobs or roles for any child.
To prevent this exploitation of unaccompanied children, we need to ensure existing laws are enforced, including child labor standards put forth by the Labor Department. Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services should work toward ensuring every unaccompanied child is provided legal counsel as set out in the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act, recently introduced by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).
As we’ve seen from experience, a lawyer can be one of the few trusted adults in the life of a child who is experiencing exploitation. Attorneys help unaccompanied children understand their rights against abuse and access a fair chance to make their case for U.S. protection, which can lead to the ability to apply for legal and safe employment. Most unaccompanied children do not have this elemental protection.
Jennifer Podkul, Washington
The writer is vice president of policy and advocacy for Kids in Need of Defense.
*************************
Read Stephanie’s full op-ed at the above link. Many thanks to both of these experts for speaking out on this tragic, solvable, yet widely ignored by the pols and the media, issue!
All of these particularities matter, because once all available options have been exhausted, cases generally end up inside an immigration court before an immigration judge. The administrative snarls that predate a case before it arrives in immigration court are thus a result of policy from the top, for better or worse.
On paper, courts are supposed to be independent bodies. They are supposed to be immune from the political agendas of other government operatives or serve as independent mediators that can rectify previous errors.
But immigration courts are not. As a part of the Justice Department, at the end of the day, they work under the attorney general. While other courts function under a de jure practice of independence, immigration courts are held to the same standard despite not possessing the same protections that allow other judges to carry out their basic job functions. This creates an impossible work environment for immigration judges to fairly adjudicate every case with the attention it deserves. Instead, their measurements of success are based on accomplishing the president’s goals, which are translated into quotas for immigration courts. For example, Biden administration officials touted removing 1.3 million migrants last year.
As the Prospect has previously reported, immigration judges have long pointed out the tenuous environment they must work in.
But later this month, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) will be hearing from the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) over whether or not their union will be reinstated. The FLRA will now have a majority of Biden appointees.
A dysfunctional immigration system can only start to work with independent courts. But that change can only happen through congressional action. In the meantime, a never-ending crisis at the border can be exploited by one party, as the other expands the needlessly punitive immigration practices of the previous administration.
*******************
Many thanks to prodigious immigration commentator Nolan Rappaport for passing this along to me.
There is consensus among experts that an independent Article I Immigration Court is urgently needed and long overdue. There is also a consensus that the chance of achieving this critical legislative change with a GOP-controlled House is zero. At the same time, we must remember that Dems didn’t exactly give any priority to this essential and far-reaching reform when they had “unified control” over the political branches.
There is also consensus that in the absence of Article I there are things that Garland and the Biden Administration could and should have done administratively that would have drastically improved the due process, expertise, quality, efficiency, “customer service,” and professionalism of EOIR.
Gee whiz, a Harvard Law student figured it out! They haveconstructive suggestions for administrative reforms to change culture, improve training, place docket control in the hands of judges not politicos and bureaucrats, increase independence, improve quality, and insulate IJs from the political whims and enforcement agendas of each Administration. Seehttps://wp.me/p8eeJm-8hE?
But, a Harvard Law grad, long-time Federal Judge, and Supremes’ nominee, and his band of supposedly smart and high-powered political lieutenants couldn’t or wouldn’t get it done for a Dem Administration? Gimmie a break!
A Dem Administration that was supposed to get us beyond the cruelty, White Nationalism, xenophobia, and “malicious incompetence” of the Trump Administration falls flat on its face on a critical and achievable part of immigration reform and racial justice in America! Go figure!
Meanwhile, the cries of pain keep coming from those subjected to Garland’s dystopian “courts!”
Had an “interesting” IH today with this IJ. [IJ] denied my motion to continue the case by email the evening before the 8:30 am hearing, even though I had four IHs scheduled in the same time slot and had filed a motion to continue a month before the hearing. [IJ] refused to grant me a few minutes to speak with OPLA counsel before the hearing to narrow issues, saying that discussion should have already taken place. [IJ] spent an inordinate amount of time on housekeeping issues. [IJ] read a list of “rules.” [IJ] would insist that counsel stand when they spoke. [IJ] would routinely deny motions for webex hearings. [IJ] went through the biographical information excruciatingly slowly, including having the respondent spell the names of all the riders, provide their birth dates, etc.
It was a case where DHS had stipulated to 42b and the only issue would’ve been discretion but the IJ didn’t care. [IJ] told me to let everyone know that [IJ] reads each and every single document submitted in . . . court from back to front and . . . has a lot of questions . . . . [IJ] went on to conduct a full hearing, chastised DHS for stipulating, made a big deal of every little thing, asked irrelevant questions about medicaid forms that [client] may have filled for her children (not included as part of evidence), insinuated that she committed medicaid fraud, and made the ACC change position on each and every issue.
[The IJ] denied the asylum application of a young gay man from El Salvador. This is a first for me, in my 20+ years of asylum practice. We’ve never lost such a case that I can recall.
The facts are pretty typical – the kid lived a life of humiliation and abuse in El Salvador due to his sexual orientation; tried to commit suicide several times; and ultimately left the country when the Mara 18 tried to get him to deliver marijuana for them. Arguably, not a strong case for past persecution, but such cases typically prevail where a judge fairly evaluates a claim of well-founded fear of future persecution and considers the country condition reports and articles about the horrendous human rights abuses against the LGBT community in El Salvador. This didn’t fly with IJ. [IJ] simply said “there is no meaningful evidence in the record to demonstrate that the Respondent would experience harm amounting to persecution in El Salvador” and then went on to say that the client would likely experience more bullying and discrimination, but that doesn’t mean it would be persecution. [IJ] did not mention any country conditions report or article from the record to support his ruling.
[T]he DHS attorney called me directly after the hearing to empathize and tell me that it’s well-known even on their side that this judge is a piece of work and it’s always a good idea to take PD if offered.
[T]his judge is a menace. I don’t know what to do to protect my clients from [IJ] other than prepare strong BIA appeals.
This is the third email I have received to schedule MORE cases. No one will tell me what the goal is. I’ve put them on notice of the health issues this is/has been causing me.
Please tell the higher ups that this practice of overscheduling the private bar is taking a serious toll on practitioners’ health. Medical documentation is below and attached. I’m really not sure why the court has felt the need to overschedule practitioners to this level, but it is really taking a serious toll on everyone. Can someone please shed light on this urgent need to overwhelm the limited number of defense attorneys we have in the area?
Another outstanding Immigration Court practitioner told me that they had left courtroom practice and taken a “research and writing” position because the EOIR courtroom “experience” under Garland was so dehumanizing, demoralizing, stressful, and life consuming!
A different attorney called me with concerns that an IJ’s “over the top” abuse of pro bono counsel would discourage others from taking cases in Immigration Court.
IJ’s wasting time; discouraging negation and stipulation by parties; taking over hearings; abusing continuance discretion; failing to abide by Cardoza & Mogharrabi; showing bias; producing wildly inconsistent anti-immigrant results; showing thin knowledge of law; rudely treating counsel and clients; over-scheduling; abusing power; endangering the health of those appearing before them; driving practitioners to leave the EOIR courtrooms; discouraging pro bono!
Everything that is NOT what a fair, independent, court of law should be is present and allowed, perhaps even encouraged, in Garland’s broken EOIR! Why is this type of grotesque mismanagement, bad judging, unprofessional conduct, and disregard of fundamental due process “business as usual” under a Dem Administration?
This “star chamber” system needs new, expert, progressive, due-process-focused, free from political hackery and inane gimmicks, “kick-ass” management! Garland isn’t getting the job done!
These younger progressives are exactly the “core support” that Dems will need to win future elections! How does “dissing” them with inept leadership and ineffective nativist-derived immigration policies help the cause?
Honestly, what a mess! Garland’s dystopian EOIR is the Democratic Party’s shame!
CROTONE, Italy — On a continent that has spent years trying to cut off undocumented immigration — using fences, surveillance, financial incentives and sometimes even brute force — the close-the-door strategy is faltering
Migration across the Mediterranean has crested to the highest level in five years. New nationalities, most notably from Egypt, have joined the stream of people seeking escape to Europe. And hard-line border policies are merely driving smugglers to adapt: Soon after Greek authorities instituted a practice of harsh pushbacks, boats departing Turkey began charting a longer route — bypassing Greece and heading instead to Italy’s Calabrian coast, an area that used to see almost no arrivals.
“Here comes another,” a law enforcement official at the port of Crotone said one recent morning, watching a vessel with 80 people come into view, just four hours after the arrival of a boat with 81 others.
The European Union’s desire to obstruct migration on multiple fronts was reflected in a collection of deals cobbled together in the aftermath of a 2015 mass-scale wave from Africa and the Middle East. And, for a while, the strategy appeared to be working: Mediterranean crossings dipped dramatically. The issue lost political primacy, depriving nationalist parties of kindling.
But an increase in arrivals this year is showing the limits of a Fortress Europe strategy — and reviving the highly contentious issue of how to handle and divvy up those who make it to the E.U. and its borderless travel zone.
“Europe’s expectations were based on a wrong assumption — that mobility across the Mediterranean could be stopped or limited, so it would no longer be politically relevant,” said Roberto Cortinovis, a migration specialist at the Center for European Policy Studies. “And that is impossible.”
. . . .
**********************
Some of the same things are happening here. Nativist/restrictionists, largely, but not exclusively, from the GOP, keep pushing failed “deterrence only” enforcement policies. And, the USG keeps “investing” in them despite decades of proven failure and deadly human results.
Ironically, today should have been the end of the illegal and abominable Title 42 charade. But, as with past fictional “deadlines” for termination, it didn’t happen.
Just to put Lee’s outrageous abuse of the law and human rights in perspective, remember that U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan recently concluded, on a voluminous record, that the use of Title 42 to deny migrants’ legal rights at the border was: 1) an illegal pretext from the beginning, and 2) causes “stomach churning” dire, irreparable harm, including rape, torture, and death, to legal asylum seekers. Essentially, nativist politicos like Lee are trying to force the Biden Administration to commit even more egregious human rights violations — on top of the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, they have already committed by enforcing Title 42 over the past two years.
While Lee’s scurrilous and totally misguided amendment is likely to fail, another almost equally bad one, sponsored by Sen. Sinema (I-AZ) to extend Title 42 indefinitely (till a “better plan” is in effect, which will never happen, particularly if the GOP has anything to say about it), is also up for a vote. “Lost in the shuffle” is the simple fact that we have existing laws that could and should be used to timely grant refugee to those legally qualified while expeditiously and summarily removing those with no credible claim. That the Biden Administration has failed to develop a viable plan for re-implementing existing law (which had been in effect for decades before being illegally abrogated by Trump) over the past two years should not be confused with impossibility!
Far from it, as many experts have pointed out, illegally “closing” ports of entry to asylum seekers has made unauthorized entry the “sole and exclusive” way for asylum seekers to exercise their rights! Yet, nativist politicos, the media, and even the Biden Administration ignore or mister present this truth.
As the International Organization on Migration has said, ““Migration is inevitable, necessary and desirable.” https://www.iom.int/news/migration-inevitable-necessary-and-desirable-opening-exhibition-iom-hague. It can be controlled and channeled with wise, realistic, and humane decisions. But, it won’t be stopped by walls, prisons, deportations, racist nationalistic rhetoric, militarization of borders, or cruel and inhumane laws and restrictionist policies.
Or, as I have said before, “We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration.” Sure, the U.S. needs comprehensive, robust immigration reform that recognizes the inevitably and mutual benefits of human migration. But, particularly with a GOP House, it’s not on the horizon.
In the meantime, it is incumbent on the Biden Administration to make existing laws and policies work to timely, efficiently, and humanely screen refugees and asylum seekers at our borders. Those who qualify should be admitted in a reasonable period of time rather than aimlessly sent to wander the U.S. waiting for interviews from USCIS or hearings from EOIR that might never happen because of mismanagement and lack of vision in the current system. Those who don’t have credible claims should be subject to the summary removal procedures of the current law.
That the Biden Administration has, to date, lacked the competence, vision, and expertise to make the existing laws work in an acceptable manner is a shame. Ultimately, it’s one they won’t be able to “run away from” no matter how hard they try!
Nolan Rappaport Contributor, The HillMargaret Stock, Esquire Anchorage, Alaska PHOTO: Law firm
Nolan sends this summary of his latest on The Hill:
Afghans who helped us deserve better immigration treatment
Nolan Rappaport, opinion contributor
As the Afghan government and military fell to the Taliban after U.S. troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan, the U.S. hastily evacuated American citizens and 76,000 Afghans who had helped the U.S. in its 20-year war against the Taliban.
It is a year later now, and most of the Afghan evacuees still have temporary immigration status, which means that they may be subject to removal when their status expires. This isn’t right. We should be taking better care of them.
It is more than just an obligation to people who put themselves in peril to help the United States.
According to Margaret D. Stock, a retired military officer, “Correcting for this inaction is a matter of national security — in future conflicts, why would anyone risk their lives by serving alongside our soldiers or providing critical translation services if the U.S. can’t keep our promises to them when we depart?”
It wouldn’t be taking this long to meet the needs of the Afghans if our immigration system weren’t overwhelmed to the point of being dysfunctional.
Parole
The evacuees who did not have entry documents had to request humanitarian parole, which permits undocumented migrants to be admitted to the United States temporarily for urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons.
Approximately 70,192 of them were paroled into the United States between July 30, 2021, and Nov. 15, 2021.
Permanent status
Congress has enacted a series of legislative provisions which enable certain Afghan nationals to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs) on the basis of a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV).
To be eligible for this special immigrant classification, the principal applicant must obtain a favorable written recommendation from the COM or a general or flag officer in the relevant Armed Forces unit.
Afghans who were employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government or the International security Assistance Force in Afghanistan may be eligible for SIV status under section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009.
Roadblock
As of July 18, 2022, there were 74,274 principal applicants in the SIV pipeline. This number does not include spouses and children. And the applications have to be processed by USCIS, which is experiencing a backlog crisis.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him athttps://www.blogger.com/blog/posts/2306123393080132994
**************
Read Nolan’s full op-ed at the link.
When experts like Nolan and Margaret are saying the same thing, everyone should listen and act accordingly!
In addition to fair and equitable treatment for our allies, we must resume and expand fair and humane treatment for all refugees, including, most important, those seeking legal refuge at our borders. Many of them actually come from broken countries where the the U.S. has left a “large footprint,” like Haiti and Latin America.
It is long past time to make the legal requirement set forth in the Refugee Act of 1980 — any individual in the US or arriving at our border may apply for asylum “irrespective of status” — a reality rather than a cruel hoax. Contrary to some disgracefully wrong-headed court decisions, this statutory requirement implicitly requires that opportunity to be in full compliance with due process.
Otherwise, to state the obvious, it’s no opportunity at all — just a legal charade. Unfortunately, that is what much of our broken, dysfunctional, and unjust asylum and refugee systems look like now!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
Reuters: The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision said the law, which is part of a broader statute barring human smuggling, criminalizes “vast amounts of protected speech” such as urging family members to remain in the U.S. after their visas expire or informing non-citizens about available social services.
CBS: The head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has directed agents to take several steps to protect the parental rights of immigrant detainees with underage or incapacitated children, according to an agency memo published Thursday.
Roll Call: One House office said their USCIS-related casework in 2021 was more than triple what it was in 2020, while another reported receiving more than a dozen USCIS-related requests each day from constituents.
TRAC: The latest case-by-case records show that the Immigration Court backlog reached 1,821,440 at the end of June 2022. This is up 25 percent from the backlog just at the beginning of this fiscal year.
TRAC: The federal government is facing a flurry of lawsuits for failing to take action on a variety of immigration-related applications. In May 2022, the federal civil courts recorded 647 immigration-related lawsuits for writs of mandamus (a type of lawsuit that seeks to compel the government to take a lawful action) and other immigration actions, the vast majority of which were linked to procedural delays or decisions by the Department of Homeland Security.
NPR: It would do this by allowing more farmers — like dairy and pork producers — to hire temporary workers year-round. Currently, year-round employers cannot use that worker visa program, known as the H-2A temporary agricultural program used by seasonal employers. It would also satisfy some goals for labor rights advocates by providing a pathway to legalization for workers who show a dedicated history of farm work.
Reuters: The United States will simplify the application process for Afghan special immigrant visas with applicants only needing to file one form, according to a statement issued on Monday by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Truth Out: While the Court unexpectedly decided to allow Biden to end the Trump-era Remain in Mexico policy, it is still unclear what the Supreme Court will decide regarding deportations. In the interim, the fate of immigrants attempting to migrate to the country will be in the hands of local Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers’ own determinations.
AP: A series of agreements the two countries hammered out as their leaders spoke called for several other concrete moves, including expanding the number of work visas the U.S. issues, creating a bilateral working group on labor migration pathways and worker protections and welcoming more refugees. Both also pledged to continue joint patrols for Mexico and Guatemala to hunt human smugglers along their shared border.
ReliefWeb: The amendments passed out of the House Appropriations Committee are particularly harmful because they make Title 42’s rescission contingent on termination of the COVID-19 emergency declaration, a decision with widespread public health and safety ramifications.
USCIS: To help demystify the naturalization process and share the life-changing impact of U.S. citizenship, USCIS selected eight community leaders across the United States to connect with aspiring citizens. Newly selected citizenship ambassadors will connect eligible populations with the USCIS mission by: Sharing their own experiences with the naturalization process;
Highlighting available information and resources; Emphasizing the advantages of U.S. citizenship; Addressing myths and misconceptions; and Providing inspiration for others pursuing citizenship.
Law360: Texas, Louisiana and 19 other Republican-led states have urged the U.S. Supreme Court to continue blocking the Biden administration from focusing removal efforts only on certain groups of migrants, arguing that not only they but the whole U.S. will suffer from the strategy’s alleged ill effects if it is allowed to go into effect.
Law360: The Fifth Circuit said a Guatemalan immigrant couldn’t use a faulty notice to appear in immigration court to contest a 17-year-old removal order, saying he wasn’t entitled to proper notice as he hadn’t given immigration officers his home address.
Law360: The full Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled that the government can prosecute an immigrant for reentering the U.S. after being ordered removed, upholding the validity of the initial deportation order despite defects in the government’s notice for the immigrant to appear in immigration court.
Law360: The Tenth Circuit struck down as unconstitutional a federal immigration law that made it a crime to encourage noncitizens to enter or live in the United States, saying the law violated free speech protections under the First Amendment.
CNN: A nurse at the privately run Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, according to the complaint, took advantage of his position to coerce the women “into giving him access to private parts of their body without medical justification or need.”
WaPo: An immigrant detention center in Virginia’s Farmville community that saw more than 300 inmates infected by the coronavirus in 2020, one of whom died, will be limited to a quarter of its capacity under a federal court settlement.
ICE: It is the policy of ICE to ensure that the agency’s civil immigration enforcement activities do not unnecessarily disrupt or infringe upon the parental or guardianship rights of noncitizen parents or legal guardians of minor children or incapacitated adults, consistent with all legal obligations and applicable court orders.
USCIS: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has extended the time beneficiaries paroled into the United States under Uniting for Ukraine have to attest to their compliance with the medical screening for tuberculosis and additional vaccinations, if required.
AILA: The CIS Ombudsman’s Office provides a reminder that USCIS updated the special instructions on its Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative page to help filers ensure that USCIS sends their form to the correct location after it is approved.
OIL: In addition to the foregoing reasons, OIL will consider remanding cases in order to facilitate exercises of prosecutorial discretion by DHS, or in other circumstances in which DHS believes that reopening of the case before the Board of Immigration Appeals is appropriate (e.g., cases in which a petitioner may have recently become eligible for adjustment of status or presents other equities such that DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement would not oppose reopening by the Board).
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
The OIL Guidelines are welcome. Whether they will be uniformly and effectively applied remains to be seen.
The “real answer,” of course, is better judges and leadership at EOIR and elevation of quality and due process over expediency and the “haste makes waste, anti-immigrant” culture that still permeates far too much of EOIR.
Police reports are an ubiquitous feature of Immigration Court. The NIJC report on why they are “inherently unreliable” and how to contest them should be mandatory reading for all immigration litigators and Federal Judges who hear or review immigration cases.
Finally, on a positive note, the article about the Senate negotiations on agricultural workers reaffirms the inevitability of human migration, its benefit both to the U.S. and to migrants, and the pressing need for additional and more realistic legal avenues for legal immigration. Nolan Rappaport over at The Hill has pointed out on a number of occasions the other areas of potential compromise if the two parties could just get beyond “posturing.” See, e.g., https://wp.me/p8eeJm-7y4.
Family Pictures Nolan Rappaport Opinion Writer The HillYael Schacher Historian Deputy Director Refugees InternationalHon. Paul Wickham Schmidt U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) Adjunct Professor, Georgetown Law Blogger, immigrationcourtside.com.
Biden’s ‘Summit of the Americas’ commitments on immigration more show than substance
Nolan Rappaport, opinion contributor
Former President Bill Clinton established the Summit of the Americas in 1994, to bring all of the countries in the Western Hemisphere — except Cuba — together for discussions on trade, immigration, and democracy. President Joe Biden hosted the event this year.
The participants recorded their immigration agreements in the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection. It represents a regional partnership to address historic migration flows affecting most of the countries in the region.
The declaration was signed by 20 countries in the region that are committed to protecting the safety and dignity of all migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, and respecting their human rights and fundamental freedoms. They intend to cooperate to facilitate safe, orderly, humane, and regular migration, consistent with national legislation, the principle of non-refoulement, and their respective obligations under international law.
But will they keep their commitments?
The last line in the declaration acknowledges that its commitments are not legally binding.
Yael Schacher, deputy director of Refugees International, says, “summits have traditionally been a parade of promises that are never fulfilled.”
According to Georgetown Law immigration professor, Paul Schmidt, the declaration is just “more empty rhetoric.”
Highlights
International financial assistance may be needed by the countries the migrants come from and the countries that host large numbers of them after they have left their own countries.
A fact sheet summarizes financial contribution commitments. For instance, the United States commits to making a contribution of an additional $25 million to the Global Concessional Financing Facility, which assists Latin American countries with programs for providing refuge to displaced migrant and refugee populations.
The United States also commits to contributing $314 million in additional funding for humanitarian and development assistance for refugees and other vulnerable migrants.
The United States will establish a $65 million pilot program to support U.S. farmers hiring temporary agricultural workers under the H-2A program.
And the United States commits to expanding its efforts to address the root causes of irregular migration throughout the hemisphere. The Biden administration previously had proposed allocating $4 billion to Central America over four years, including $860.6 million in fiscal 2022.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him at https://www.blogger.com/blog/posts/2306123393080132994
****************
Head on over to The Hill to read Nolan’s full article. Internet “hits” help keep him in business!
Always a pleasure to be quoted along with my friend and super-scholar Yael Schacher — a trained historian/archivist in possession of what’s left of the “Schmidt archives!” (Yael stopped me several boxes into my project of using them to fuel our back-yard fire pit. But, Yael’s timely intervention still helped me fulfill my “promise upon retirement” to Cathy to get my boxes of papers out of the attic, basement, and garage. Also, after recently serving as an executor for my cousin, I’m sure our children will be grateful.)
Anti-Asylum Judges In Action! Factual distortions, ignoring evidence, and misapplications of the law are some of the “weapons” wielded by some EOIR judges to stop asylum seekers from getting the life-saving legal protections they deserve! Article III Courts can compound the problem by mis-using “deference” to avoid critical examination of the frequent abuses of humanity and the rule of law inflicted by this parody of a court system. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
ONE TINY STEP FOR MANKIND: But It’s Going To Take Much More Than Finally Replacing A Few Stunningly Unqualified Judges To Save EOIR!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
June 25, 2022
Over the last few weeks the long overdue and essential process of weeding out poorly qualified Immigration Judges — still on “probation” at EOIR — finally got off to a very modest start.
Imagine yourself as a refugee fighting for your life in an asylum system that’s already stacked against you and where the “judges” work for the Attorney General, part of the Executive Branch’s political and law enforcement apparatus.
How would you like your life to be in the hands of (now) former Immigration Judge Matthew O’Brien. He was appointed in 2020 by former AG Bill Barr — a staunch defender of the Trump/Miller White Nationalist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant agenda.
Nativism A “Qualification?”
What made O’Brien supposedly “qualified” to be a “fair and impartial” administrative judge?
Thankfully, O’Brien will pass into history. But, the damage inflicted by the “official policy of child abuse” will adversely affect generations.
Or, perhaps it was O’Brien’s intimate connection with a leading nativist group. Immediately prior to his appointment, he was the “Research” Director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (“FAIR”) — a group renowned for sloppy to non-existent “research” and presenting racially-motivated myths and fear mongering as “facts.”
As noted by Nowrasteh, that’s not the only example of FAIR providing “bogus research papers” designed to “rev up hate” and demean the contributions of immigrants both documented and undocumented.
The Anti-Defamation League (“ADL”), one of America’s most venerable anti-hate, anti-misinformation groups, founded more than a century ago “To stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all,” had this to say about O’Brien’s former employer:
While the majority of the extreme anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. emanates from fringe groups like white supremacists and other nativists, there are a number of well-established anti-immigrant groups such as Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA and The Remembrance Project which have secured a foothold in mainstream politics, and their members play a major role in promoting divisive, dangerous rhetoric and views that demonize immigrants. A number of these groups have attempted to position themselves as legitimate advocates against “illegal immigration” while using stereotypes, conspiracy theories and outright bigotry to disparage immigrants and hold them responsible for a number of societal ills. A decade ago, most of this bigotry was directed primarily at Latino immigrants, but today, Muslim and Haitian immigrants, among others, are also targeted.
. . . .
There is a distinct anti-immigrant movement in this country, whose roots can be traced back to the 1970s. Groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) hope to influence general audiences with somewhat sanitized versions of their anti-immigrant views. In their worldview, non-citizens do not enjoy any status or privilege, and any path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants or refugees is portrayed as a threat to current citizens. Like some other problematic movements, the anti-immigrant movement also has a more extreme wing, which includes border vigilante groups, as well as groups and individuals that seek to demonize immigrants by using racist, sometimes threatening language.
So, perhaps, you say, once actually “on the bench,” Judge O’Brien was able to overcome his biases and knowledge gaps and function as a fair and impartial judicial officer. Nope! Not in the cards!
According to TRAC, O’Brien denied almost every asylum case he heard (96.4% denials). That was, astoundingly, nearly 40% above the average of his colleagues in Arlington and nearly 30% higher than the nationwide asylum denial rate of approximately 67%.
But, to put this in perspective, we have to recognize that this denial rate had already been intentionally and artificially increased by a expanded,”packed,” politicized, “weaponized,” and intentionally “dumbed down” EOIR during the Sessions/Barr era at DOJ. For example, approximately 10 years ago, more than 50% of asylum, cases were being granted annually nationwide, and approximately 75% of the asylum cases in Arlington were granted. See, e.g., https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judge2014/00001WAS/index.html. And, even then, most asylum experts would have said that the nationwide grant rate was too low.
Gaming The System For Denial
It’s not that conditions in “refugee/asylum sending” countries have gotten better over the past decade! Far from it! The refugee situation today is as bad as it has ever been since WWII and getting worse every day.
So, why would legal refugee admissions be plunging to record lows (despite a rather disingenuous “increase in the refugee ceiling” by the Biden Administration) and asylum denials up dramatically over the past decade?
It has little or nothing to do with asylum law or the realities of the worldwide refugee flow, particularly from Latin American and Caribbean countries. No, it has to do with an intentional move, started under Bush II, tolerated or somewhat encouraged in the Obama Administration, but greatly accelerated during the Trump-era, to “kneecap” the legal refugee and asylum processing programs. Indeed, the “near zeroing-out” of refugee and asylum admissions and the illegal replacement of Asylum Officers by totally unqualified CBP Agents by the Trump Administration are two of the most egregious examples.
Ironically, the EOIR backlog tripled. Under the “maliciously incompetent management” of the Trump group at DOJ, more judges actually meant more backlog! How is that giving taxpayers “value” for their money?
Some of the new judges, like O’Brien and some of the Immigration Judges “elevated” to the BIA, were appointed specifically because of their established records of anti-asylum bias, rude treatment of attorneys, and dehumanizing treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants.
“Ignorance And Contempt”
It’s not like O’Brien was just your “garden variety” “conservative jurist.”(I’ve actually worked with many of the latter over the years). No, he was notorious for his lack of scholarship, rudeness, and bias!
Here are a few of the comments he received on “RateYourJudge.com:”
“Rarely grants cases. No knowledge of the law, only there to deny cases. He needs to be removed.”
“Biased judge, hates immigrants and even kids of immigrants.”
“Incompetent.”
“One of the most condescending and self-righteous judges I have had the displeasure to hear. His word choice and tone left absolutely no doubt that he considered the Respondent to be beneath his notice, even to the point of referring to her as “the female Respondent” and to her domestic partner as a “paramour”. I have heard other judges’ oral opinions on very similar sets of facts, and they were accomplished in a fifth of the time with no loss of dignity to anyone.”
“This guy’s ignorance about immigration law and contempt for the people who appear before him is staggering. The way he threatens lawyers is reprehensible. EOIR is a disgrace.”
“Horrible human being with no business being on the bench. Shame on EOIR for allowing him to continue adjudicating cases.”
“Late, abusive, made up his mind before the case even started, frequently interrupted testimony, yelled at immigrants and their lawyer, and refused to listen to anything we said. Ignorant of the law and facts of the case. He should go back to directing hate groups.”
Among the stream of negative comments there were three “positive” comments about O’Brien;
Most of the comments both positive and negative were “anonymous” or apparent user “pseudonyms;”
“RateMyImmigrationJudge” is neither comprehensive nor transparent.
Flunking the “Gold Standard”
So, was O’Brien really as horrible as most experts say? Let’s do another type of “reality check.”
Among the other IJs at the Arlington Immigration Court, two stand out as widely respected expert jurists who have served for decades across Administrations of both parties. Judge John Milo Bryant was first appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1987 under the Reagan Administration. Judge Lawrence Owen Burman was appointed in 1998 under the Clinton Administration. With 66 years of judicial service between them, they would be considered more or less the “gold standard” for well-qualified, subject matter expert, fair and impartial Immigration Judges.
Significantly, according to the last TRAC report, O’Brien’s asylum grant rate of 3,6% wasapproximately 1/15th of Judge Bryant’s and approximately 1/22 of Judge Burman’s. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judgereports/. Case closed! O’Brien should never have been on a bench where asylum seekers lives were at stake and expertise and fairness are supposed to be job requirements!
“Worse Than O’Brien”
What about now former Arlington Immigration Judge David White who was removed at the same time as O’Brien? Apparently, during his relatively short tenure (appointed by Barr in 2020), White was unable to deny enough asylum to qualify for TRAC’s system (100 decisions minimum).
Yet, he made an indelible impression on those “sentenced” to appear before him. Here are comments from RateMyImmigrtionJudge.com:
“This judge is absolutely terrible. Unfair and biased. He is only here to deny asylum cases regardless of what the person has been through. Completely misstates the facts, doesn’t know the law so goes after credibility (using those misstated facts) as an excuse to say there’s no past persecution. Absolute disgrace.”
“Worst judge ever. The clerks at the Immigration Court told the private bar attorneys that they have NEVER seen this judge approve an asylum case. Not one. They have running bets and jokes about him, but he never grants. He writes the denial during the trial instead of listening to the person testify. He is insulting and rude and not at all compassionate about trauma.”
“This is the worst immigration judge in Arlington, hands down. He’s even worse than O’Brien, and O’Brien is an former hate-group director.”
“Terrible immigration judge. Had his mind made up well before our hearing. Came in with a prewritten denial that misstated the law. Was rude and dismissive about my client’s trauma.”
Wow! Worse than O’Brien. That’s quite an achievement.
GOP Court Packing
Fact is, the overt politicization, “weaponization,” and “dumbing down” of the Immigration Courts goes back nearly two decades to AG John Ashcroft and the Bush II Administration. Ashcroft reduced the size of the BIA as a gimmick to “purge” the supposedly “liberal” judges — those, including me, who voted to uphold the legal rights of migrants against government overreach. In other words, our “transgression” was to stand up for due process and the individual rights of immigrants — actually “our job” as properly defined.
And, the downward spiral has continued. The DOJ Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) actually confirmed some of the Bush II improper Immigration Judge hires. But, they avoided dealing with the “BIA purge” that got the ball rolling downhill at EOIR! The GOP has been much more skillful than Dems in reshaping the Immigration Courts to their liking.
During the Trump Administration, putting clearly unqualified IJs who were some of rudest highest denying in America on the BIA was certainly “packing” and “stacking” EOIR against legitimate asylum seekers. Again, however, the OIG failed to “seal the deal” regarding this outrageous conduct that has undermined our entire justice system, fed uncontrollable backlog, and cost human lives that should and could have been saved.
Trump’s “court packing scheme” was no “small potatoes” matter, even if some in the Biden Administration are willfully blind to the continuing human rights and due process disaster at EOIR.
Removing two of the most glaringly unqualified Barr appointees in Arlington is a very modest step by AG Garland in the right direction. But, it’s going to take more, much more, decisive action to clean out the unqualified and the deadwood, bring in true expertise and judicial quality, and restore even a modicum of legitimacy and integrity at EOIR.
Reactionaries’ Predictably Absurdist Reaction
Meanwhile, even this long overdue, well justified, and all too minimal change at EOIR produced totally absurdist reactions from O’Brien and fellow nativists (including some still “hiding out in plain sight” at DOJ) which were picked up by the Washington Times (of course). Don’t believe a word of it!
The removal of guys like O’Brien and White — who never had any business being placed in “quasi-judicial” positions where they exercised life or death authority over refugees of color whose humanity and legal rights they refused to recognize, is just a beginning. The ethical, competence, and judicial attitude rot at EOIR goes much deeper.
Garland has been dilatory in “cleaning house” at EOIR. Vulnerable individuals who were wrongly rejected rather than properly protected have needlessly suffered, and probably even died, as a result. Poor Immigration Judging and lack of effective, correct, courageous, positive asylum guidance by the BIA has helped fuel a human rights disaster and rule of law collapse at the border!
Perhaps, at long last, Garland has slowly started fixing the unconscionable and unnecessary dysfunction andintentionally ingrained institutional bias at EOIR. But, I’ll believe it when I see it!
Keep Up The Pressure
In the meantime, it’s critical that NDPA members: 1) keep applying for EOIR judgeships; and 2) ratchet up the pressure and demand the removal of all unqualified Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges who are undermining sound scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, and human dignity at EOIR!
Human rights matter! Individual rights matter! Immigrants’ rights matter! Good judges matter!
Today, we are surrounded by too many bad judges, at all levels of our justice system, who reject the first three in favor of warped far-right ideologies, dangerous myths, and disregard for human dignity. The existential battle to get good judges into our system has begun. And, Immigration Courts are the primary theater of action!
Immigration courts are overrun with cases, and it’s only getting worse
Nolan Rappaport, opinion contributor
The immigration court has a backlog of more than 1.7 million cases. This means that the number of people waiting for a hearing is larger than the population of Phoenix, Ariz., or of Philadelphia, Pa., the fifth and sixth largest cities in the United States.
This isn’t a new problem, but it has gotten much worse recently. According to TRAC, a data distribution organization at Syracuse University, the growth of the backlog has been accelerating at a breakneck pace since the start of the Biden administration when it was “only” close to 1.3 million cases.
What is the administration doing to reduce the backlog?
Hiring more judges: Recent administrations have prioritized hiring more judges to lower the backlog. From fiscal 2014, to fiscal 2021, the number of judges has more than doubled, rising from 249 to 559. At the end of the first quarter in fiscal 2022, there were 578.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the backlog probably would continue to grow even if 100 more judges were hired. An additional 200 could reduce the backlog to just under 1.1 million, but it wouldn’t reach that level until fiscal 2031. It would take an additional 500 judges to eliminate the backlog entirely, and it wouldn’t happen until fiscal 2030.
Accelerated dockets: In May 2021, DHS announced a “dedicated docket” program to “more expeditiously and fairly” render decisions in the cases of certain families who are apprehended after making an illegal entry.
These families are placed in removal proceedings and then released into the interior of the country under the “Alternatives to Detention” program. This program currently is monitoring more than 227,508 families and single individuals.
The Florence Projectclaims that the Obama and Trump administrations attempted these “dedicated dockets” to reduce the backlog and it not only failed, but led to widespread due process violations and undermined access to legal counsel.
The Vera Institute of Justiceopposes the program because it “forces newly arriving, asylum-seeking families through rushed ‘rocket docket’ court proceedings without guaranteeing legal representation for all, depriving families of fairness and due process.”
In any case, it just speeds up the processing of new additions to the immigration court caseload. It does nothing to reduce the size of the backlog, and it is very unfair to migrants who have been waiting for a hearing for up to five years.
It also may hamper efforts to reduce the backlog. Georgetown law school professor Paul Schmidt points out that when dedicated docket judges are not available for cases on the general docket, it places extra burdens on their judicial colleagues who are handling the general docket cases.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him at https://nolanrappaport.blogspot.com
******************
Go over to The Hill at the above link to read the complete article.
Thanks Nolan for continuing to “shine the light” on this critical issue that might appear to be “below the radar screen” but actually threatensthe stability of our entire legal system!⚖️
As I’ve said many times, Aimless Docket Reshuffling (“ADR”), engaged in to some extent by Administrations of both parties, is NOT the answer. It’s a huge part of the problem!
Family Pictures Nolan Rappaport Opinion Writer The Hill
Senators say they’re interested in bipartisan immigration plan; here are some suggestions
Nolan Rappaport, opinion contributor
Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) plan to bring together a group of senators interested in trying to revive immigration discussions after the April recess. They “want to sit at a table and ask members who have immigration, bipartisan immigration bills, to come and propose those bills to us and see if we can build a 60-vote plus margin for a group of bills.”
Are they serious about immigration reform, or are they just doing this so they will be able to say in the upcoming midterm elections that they sponsored a number of immigration reform bills?
It won’t take much effort to repackage bills that have already been introduced.
In any case, they seem at least to be open to a variety of approaches to immigration reform, so I will take this opportunity to offer them a few suggestions.
Registry — The Democrats tried to include a registry provision update in a reconciliation bill in September 2021, but the Senate parliamentarian made them remove it. That was unfortunate. The registry provision has not been updated since 1986.
The registry provision grants lawful permanent resident status to certain undocumented immigrants who have resided continuously in the United States since before Jan. 1, 1972. This means that registry currently is available only to undocumented immigrants who have lived here continuously for half a century, which greatly reduces the value of the provision.
The Democrats went too far in the other direction with the update they put in the reconciliation bill. It would have changed this date to Jan. 1, 2011, which would make legalization available to approximately 6.7 million undocumented immigrants.
At some point, an undocumented immigrant has been here so long that it would be unconscionable to make him leave. It’s just a matter of reaching an agreement on when that point has been reached.
I encourage the senators to include the registry provision in their bipartisan discussion to see if there is a date that would be acceptable to both parties.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him at https://nolanrappaport.blogspot.com
****************
Read Nolan’s full article at the link.
Nolan doesn’t claim that enactment of these provisions would “solve all problems” — an ambitious task. But, the package would be a very significant improvement, building on legal and administrative mechanisms that have been successful in the past.
Here are some major things that could be accomplished:
Dramatically cutting into the unmanageable backlogs at both USCIS and EOIR in a way that should actually be “self-funding” and relatively free of litigation;
Reducing pressure on the border without the type of “gimmicks” that have proved unsuccessful in the past and giving individuals the ability toapply and get an answer without making the journey to the border;
Combatting employer exploitation of undocumented workers and maintaining an adequate wage scale for all American workers;
Increasing the pool of legally authorized employment (including employment in “essential occupations”) at a time when it is badly needed; and, incidentally,
Substantially increasing tax revenues.
It would be great to believe that folks on the Hill and in the Administration are actively thinking about such timely, achievable, practical solutions to ongoing problems.
Some GOP judges and super-sleazy state AGs have a very clear vision of the future for refugees of color. Most days, the Biden Administration can’t decide whether they share it or not. EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)Professor (Emeritus) David A. Martin UVA Law PHOTO: UVA Law
The court’s opinion carries the reader along on what purports to be textual analysis and implacable logic. On closer examination, however, it is a startling exercise in judicial imperialism. The opinion seizes on fragments of statutory text, taken out of context, to construct a presumed congressional intent that would be more to the judges’ liking. It ignores contrary indicators in the wording and the historical development of the key provisions. It makes no attempt to reconcile the supposed strict mandate with the historical fact that Congress went 20 years without really noticing—much less objecting to—the absence of implementation. The court also shows an arrogant disregard for the operational realities of border enforcement, including the sensitivity of diplomatic relations with Mexico that sustain cross-border cooperation—on migration issues as well as other policy priorities.
I can bring some special perspective in analyzing the appeals court’s decision. I have been a scholar and teacher of immigration law for 40 years, and I also was fortunate to hold policy-level positions dealing with immigration in three different departments, under three different Presidents. My years in government gave me close exposure to the operational realities at a level most law professors—and judges—don’t experience. One of those stints consisted of 30 months during the mid-nineties as General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) the period when the key reform bills on which the Fifth Circuit relies were introduced, debated, amended, enacted and implemented.
. . . .
****************
Read David’s complete article at the above link. As usual, my “practical scholar” friend gives you the real legal analysis that should have been applied by the court. Now, here’s my “less nuanced” take on this atrocious and cowardly piece of extreme White Nationalist judicial misfeasance!
Remarkably, in their 117 pages of snarky, wooden legalese, demeaning of humanity, and willfully misrepresenting reality, these life-tenured righty judges (surprise, two Trumpists, one Bush I) give no serious consideration whatsoever to the well-documented, daily, ongoing abuses of the human and legal rights of those fleeing oppression who are subjected to this heinous White Nationalist program! See, e.g., https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/shameful-record-biden-administration-s-use-trump-policies-endangers-people-seeking-asylum
Just how do asylum applicants exercise their statutory “right” to apply for asylum and other protection under U.S. and international law if they are dead, kidnapped, beaten, extorted, raped, threatened, given inadequate notice of hearing, denied their right to legal assistance, prevented from preparing and documenting their cases, and if they are fortunate enough to finally get a hearing, subjected to an anti-asylum, anti-due-process, non-asylum-expert “faux judiciary” run by a prosecutor with a majority of his “holdover judges” appointed or co-opted by his White Nationalist, asylum-hating predecessors? The Fifth Circuit doesn’t bother to explain. That’s probably because historically their failure to stand up for human rights and racial justice for those in need of protection has been part of the problem.
Also, it’s remarkable how righty judges who couldn’t find any reasons to stop the Trump regime from rewriting asylum law out of existence in unprecedented ways, without legislation, and usually without regard to the APA, suddenly take a much different position when it comes to the Biden Administration’s modest efforts to vindicate human rights and restore some semblance of the rule of law. But, that’s actually less surprising than the Biden Administration’s failure to “see the handwriting on the wall” and have a “Plan B” in operation.
Obviously, these three life-tenured right-wing human rights abusers in robes need to spend a few months “detained” in Mexico or in the “New American Gulag!” But, that’s wishful thinking. Not going to happen! These are ivory tower guys with life tenure, fat salaries, and robes who use their positions to pick on the most vulnerable in the world and deprive them of their legal and human rights based on intentional misconstructions of the law, ignorance of reality, and pandering to a rather overly political racist appeal from GOP AGs who are from “the bottom of humanity’s — and our legal profession’s — apple barrel!” Doesn’t get much worse than that!
Nevertheless, it should be clear to both advocates and the Biden Administration that “Remain in Mexico” likely is here to stay! Despite the lack of merits to the Fifth Circuit’s decision, and the Supreme’s granting of the Biden Administration’s cert petition, I wouldn’t hold my breath for relief from either the right-wing Supremes or the feckless Dems in Congress.
Given that the program is likely to be judicially imposed, the Administration and advocates can still get together to make it work in compliance with due process. It’s well within their power and not rocket science:
Appoint a new BIA with appellate judges who are practical scholars in asylum and will establish coherent, correct legal guidance on domestic violence claims, gender based asylum, gang-based claims, nexus, “failure of state protection,” credibility, corroboration, the operation of the presumption of future persecution, the DHS’s burden of rebutting the presumption, “rise to the level,” right to counsel, fair hearings, and other critical areas where the current “Trump holdover” BIA’s guidance has been lacking, inadequate, and/or defective. They can also insure consistency in asylum adjudications, something that has long escaped EOIR.
Get a corps of Immigration Judges with established records and reputations for scholarly expertise, commitment to due-process, practicality, and fairness to asylum seekers to handle these cases.
Work with pro bono and advocacy groups and the UNHCR to insure that every person applying under this program has access to competent representation and adequate opportunities to prepare and document cases. Nolan Rappaport and I have recently written about the “largely untapped potential” of a better “qualified representative” program. Professor Michele Pistone at Villanova Law has done some ground-breaking innovative work on training accredited representatives for asylum cases in Immigration Court. But, like most other long overdue reforms, it appears to have gone over Garland’s distracted head! https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/02/02/⚖%EF%B8%8F🗽there-will-be-no-supreme-intervention-to-stop-mpp-☹%EF%B8%8F-rappaport-pistone-schmidt-tell-how-the-administration-advocates-c/
Work with the Government of Mexico and the UNHCR to guarantee the health, security, safety, and welfare of those waiting in camps in Mexico.
Then, we’ll finally find out how many of those who have already passed credible fearactually qualify for a grant of asylum under a fair, competent, timely system run by experts with individuals who are well-represented! I’ll bet it’s the majority, not the measly 2% who have received grants under EOIR’s “Stephen Miller Lite” approach!
For example, during 13 years on the trial bench, I found that the majority of those referred to Immigration Court after a positive “credible fear” finding (all of the “Remain in Mexico” applicants fall in that category) qualified for asylum or some other type of protection from removal. And, like my friend and long time-colleague Professor Martin, I’ve been working on asylum issues from enforcement, advocacy, academic, and judicial standpoints, in and out of government, since before there was a Refugee Act of 1980!
So, to me, the “2% asylum grant rate” in Immigration Court for these cases,” particularly in light of some revised intentionally overly restrictive “credible fear” criteria imposed by the Trump regime, appears clearly bogus. Why hasn’t Garland looked into the systemic defects in the EOIR system, as applied to “Remain in Mexico,” that have artificially suppressed the grant rate?
Lack of lawyers, undue hinderances on gathering evidence and presenting cases, poor notice, lack of expertise, inadequate training, and anti-asylum performance by IJs and the BIA, and in some cases kidnapping, assault, rape, extortion, and other well-documented physical harm knowingly inflicted on applicants by placing them in clearly dangerous and unacceptable conditions in Mexico are just the start!
There are lots of creative ways of making our current immigration system work better! You just need the knowledge, motivation, expertise, and guts to make it happen! So, far that’s been lacking at all levels of the Biden Administration, but particularly at Garland’s “brain-dead” DOJ. Gosh, these guys make Stephen Miller look like a “creative genius,” albeit an evil and pathological one! 🤯🤮🏴☠️ Come on, man!
As many of us have pointed out, Garland, Mayorkas, Biden, and Harris could and should have had such a system up and operating by now! Outrageous and disgusting as the conduct of the 5th Circuit has been, it’s hardly unpredictable given past performance. Every day that the Administration continues to waste by not making the necessary changes at EOIR, a court system totally within their control, adds to the human misery and injustice!
So, bottom line: White Nationalist judges get life tenure from the GOP. Meanwhile, back at the ranch of the “Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight,” Biden and Garland retain Trump’s White Nationalist appointees and enablers at EOIR and eschew the chance to create a diverse, progressive, expert, practical, due-process-oriented, fundamental-fairness-insistent, racial-justice-committed judiciary to decide life-or-death cases that affect and influence the operation of our entire justice system and our democracy in ways that no other court system in America does! The Administration’s alarming “tone deafness” is blowing perhaps the “last clear chance” to create a “model judiciary!” Sounds like something only a Dem Administration could do. Go figure!
Under Trump, asylum seekers sent to Mexico were often confused and adrift, unsure how to find legal help or return for their U.S. court appointments. They were visible on the streets of Mexican border cities and were easy targets for criminal gangs.
Marysol Castro, an attorney with El Paso’s Diocesan Migrant and Refugee Services who provides legal aid to asylum seekers in MPP, said the program’s return under Biden was a “relief” to some, “because otherwise if you go to the border you’re getting expelled” under Title 42.
Castro said new enrollees in MPP have court dates with fast-tracked hearings, unlike asylum seekers who were placed into the program under Trump and are still stuck in Mexico “with no hope.”
Mexican authorities say they received assurances from the Biden administration that migrants placed in MPP would have improved access to legal counsel. But despite the vastly lower numbers, there is still far more demand for pro bono legal services than nonprofit groups and charities can provide, Castro said.
More than two-thirds of MPP returns under Biden have been sent to Ciudad Juárez, where they are provided secure transportation through a State Department contract with the U.N. International Organization for Migration. The Mexican government houses them in a shelter set up in a converted warehouse in an industrial area of the city.
“The shelters are more restrictive,” said Victor Hugo Lopez, a Mexican official who helps oversee the program. “The migrants can request permits to go outside, but we try to keep them safe by keeping them inside.”
Dana Graber Ladek, the IOM chief of mission in Mexico, said her organization continues to oppose MPP on principle, even as it’s working with both governments to ameliorate conditions for those sent back.
“It still has a tremendous amount of negative impacts,” she said. “It’s not how asylum is supposed to work.”
Representation remains a problem, but also an opportunity, just as Nolan Rappaport said on The Hill! Fortunately, Professor Michele Pistone has been thinking in advance and has built a “scalable” program (VIISTA-Villanova) that already is turning out qualified grads who can become accredited representatives and could quickly be expanded. By coordinating scheduling of hearings with nationwide NGOs and pro bono groups and “leveraging” resources that might be available to get pro bono resources to the border without overtaxing them elsewhere with “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” (“ADR”), the representation problem can be solved.
One good sign is that cases of those likely to be granted, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, have been prioritized which can help move dockets forward while reducing resource-wasting appeals and petitions for review. But, there is much more “low hanging fruit” here to be harvested, in my view:
Also prioritize many Haitian cases, domestic violence cases from Latin America, and family-based cases which, if represented and documented, should be relatively straightforward grants;
Replace the BIA with judges who are asylum experts and will issue the necessary positive guidance on granting asylum that will move dockets, promote consistency, and reduce appeals;
Why ignore the “waiting for Godot” cases left over from Trump’s intentionally “built to fail” program? Get them represented and scheduled for hearings;
End the failing and totally misguided “Dedicated Dockets” at EOIR. Instead, treat the MPP as the “Dedicated Docket;”
To keep backlog from further building, use ideas from the “Chen-Markowitz” plan to remove two “hopelessly aged” cases from the EOIR backlog docket for every MPP case “prioritized.” This could also free up some representation time. Go from ADRto “Rational Docket Management” (“RDM”), closely coordinated with the private bar and DHS!
Finally, keep in mind that directly contrary to the babbling of Paxton and other ignorant GOP White Nationalists, the purpose of asylum law is protection, not rejection! And, the generous standard of proof for asylum, recognized by the Supremes 35years ago, combined with existing regulatory presumptions of future persecution based on past persecution should, if honestly and expertly applied, favor asylum applicants (even if that hasn’t been true in practice). The U.S. legal system is supposed to be about guaranteeing due process fundamental fairness, and achieving justice, not to serve as a “deterrent,” “punishment,” or “enforcement tool.”
In the case of MPP, everyone in the program has already passed initial credible fear or reasonable fear screening!That means with well-qualified Immigration Judges possessing asylum expertise, new expert BIA judges, competent representation, and a focus on insuring justice by DHS Counsel, many, probably the majority of the MPP cases should be grants of asylum of other protection.
That will help clean out the camps, while addressing the serious “immigration deficit” that was engineered by Trump and Miller. It also allows refugees to become contributing members of our society, rather than rotting away and squandering their human potential in squalid camps in Mexico!
To date, most MPP cases havebeen denied with questionable due process, little obvious expertise, and a complete lack of positive, practical guidance by the BIA. This strongly suggests severe shortcomings and bias in the DHS/DOJ implementation of Remain in Mexico (“MPP”). But, it’s never too late to do better!
The Post article suggests that there have been some modest improvements in MPP under Biden. It’s time to take those to another level! The ideas and tools are out there. All that’s missing is the dynamic leadership, teamwork, and competent, creative., due-process-focused focused management.
DISCLAIMER: While I have been inspired by, and drawn on, the work of my friends Nolan & Michele, this posting is my view and does not necessarily represent either of their views on MPP, its merits, and/or the litigation challenging it.
INA section 1229a(b)(4)(A) prohibits the government from paying for lawyers to represent immigrants in removal proceedings. The pertinent part of this section states that, “the alien shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien’s choosing who is authorized to practice in such proceedings” (emphasis added).
But there is an alternative. EOIR has a program for recognizing organizations and accrediting their non-attorney representatives to represent aliens in removal proceeds for a nominal fee, and INA section 1229a(b)(4)(A) does not prohibit the government from providing these organizations with the funds they need to expand their immigration operations.
The government established the recognition and accreditation program to increase the availability of competent immigration legal representation for low-income and indigent persons, which promotes the effective and efficient administration of justice.
Two levels of accreditation are available. Full accreditation authorizes the accredited representative to represent immigrants in proceedings before DHS, in proceedings before an immigration judge, and in appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Partial accreditation just authorizes them to assist immigrants in proceedings before DHS, such as in applying for an immigration benefit.
Aliens needing low-cost legal representation for removal proceedings or to apply for asylum can find recognized organizations and accredited representatives in their area on the roster of Recognized Organizations and Accredited Representatives. Currently, there are 761 recognized organizations and 1,970 accredited representatives, but only 300 of them have full accreditation.
An organization applying for recognition must establish that it is a Federal, tax-exempt, non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar organization; that it provides immigration legal services primarily to low-income and indigent clients; and that, if it charges fees, it has a written policy for accommodating clients who are unable to pay the fees.
And it must establish that it has access to adequate knowledge, information, and experience in all aspects of immigration law and procedure.
An organization applying for the accreditation of a representative must establish that the representative has the character and fitness needed for representing immigration clients; that he has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings or been convicted of a serious crime; and that he has the necessary knowledge in immigration law and procedures.
Professor Michele Pistone Villanova Law
Excellent training programs are available to provide representatives with the knowledge they need to represent immigrants in removal proceedings before an immigration judge, such as the Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates (VIISTA) — a university-based online certificate program that was established by Michele Pistone, a law professor at Villanova in August 2020, to provides the training immigrant advocates need to become accredited representatives.
VIISTA covers all of the topics needed to become an effective immigrant advocate — such as interviewing, how to work with an interpreter, how to work with migrant children, trial advocacy and, of course, immigration law.
Biden’s promise to maximize legal representation
Biden included maximizing legal representation in his “Blueprint for a Fair, Orderly, and Human Immigration System.” His plan to achieve that objective includes providing $23 million to support legal orientation programs — but orientation programs do not provide legal representation. In fact, the statement of work for the LAB contract solicitation requires orientation presenters to explain that they do not provide legal advice or representation.
Accredited representatives with full accreditation do provide legal advice and legal representation — but there aren’t nearly enough of them now to meet the need for such assistance.
Biden could use the funds he has earmarked for the legal orientation program to provide recognized organizations with the money they need to increase the number of accredited representatives — but a better solution would be for congress to provide the necessary funding.
For many asylum-seeking immigrants, an accredited representative with immigration law training may be their only hope for representation when they appear at their asylum hearings.
**********************
Thanks for this timely and informative piece, Nolan! Amazingly, this “accessible” analysis of an under-publicized opportunity is Nolan’s 300th published op-ed on The Hill! Congratulations! 🎊🍾
Go on over to The Hill to read the full article! The excerpt published above also contains helpful links to the VIISTA Program @ Villanova.
The extraordinary, innovative VIISTA Program began with Michele’s dinner table conversation with Judges Larry “The Burmanator” Burman, Mimi Tsankov (now NAIJ President), and me following an FBA Conference in DC several years ago. I doubt that any other lawyer in America could have turned it into reality. Michele got all the grants for seed money herself — winning a prestigious Kaplan Family Foundation Grant for Innovation in the process!
Because VIISTA is modularized, available online, constantly evaluated (including, of course, by students), and updated, it is “built for rapid expansion” throughout America, as suggested by Nolan. Even now, Michele is actively looking for “partners.”
My Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase and I were privileged to have had modest roles in VIISTA’s curriculum development and review. Additionally, our Round Table colleague Judge Ilyce Shugall is one of the exceptional VIISTA faculty.
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) A “Fighting Knightess of the Round Table,” she’s also one of VIISTA’s talented expert faculty members who knows exactly what asylum seekers need to prove to win in what currently is “America’s most dysfunctional court system!” She has “lived life on both sides of the bench!”
Recently (pre-omicron) Jeffrey and I were fortunate enough to be invited to a “VIISTA Anniversary Celebration” @ Villanova. We had a chance to meet not only folks from the Kaplan Foundation and Villanova (which has been totally supportive), but also to meet and hear from some faculty and members of the “Inaugural Class” about their achievements and their plans for the future.
This is truly “making the law better” and “delivering justice” at a grass roots level! And, as Nolan points out, expanded programs like this might be asylum seekers’ best chance of getting great representation that could be “outcome determinative.” Michele’s goal is 10,000 new representatives in 10 years! Who could doubt her ability to pull it off!
By now, it should be clear to both advocates and the Biden Administration that “Remain in Mexico” is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. No matter what the lack of merits to the Fifth Circuit’s decision might be (I’m sure that its tone-deaf, disconnected from reality and humanity approach will be the subject of numerous critical commentaries and law review articles), no relief can be expected from either the right-wing Supremes or the feckless Dems in Congress.
Given that the MPP program is going to be judicially imposed, the Administration and advocates can still get together to make it work in compliance with due process. It’s well within their power and not rocket 🚀 science:
A Better Due-Process- Focused Approach To “Remain in Mexico:”
Better BIA. Appoint a new BIA with appellate judges who are practical scholars in asylum and will establish coherent, correct legal guidance on domestic violence claims, gender based asylum, gang-based claims, nexus, “failure of state protection,” credibility, corroboration, the operation of the presumption of future persecution, the DHS’s burden of rebutting the presumption, “rise to the level,” right to counsel, fair hearings, fair notice, and other critical areas where the current “Trump holdover” BIA’s guidance has been lacking, inadequate, or defective. They can also insure consistency in asylum adjudications, something that has long escaped EOIR.
Better Judges. Get a corps of Immigration Judges with established records and reputations for scholarly expertise in asylum, demonstrated commitment to due-process, practicality, and fairness to asylum seekers to handle these cases.
Better Representation. Work with pro bono, advocacy groups, VIISTA, and the UNHCR to insure that every person applying under this program has access to competent representation and adequate opportunities to prepare and document cases. Another one of Nolan’s good ideas for VIISTA-type programs would be for Congress to provide scholarships for students (beyond those already available from Villanova). I have also gotten “anecdotal reports” that EOIR has built up an unconscionable backlog in processing of applications for Accreditation & Recognition. If confirmed, this must be immediately addressed.
Better Conditions. Work with the Government of Mexico and the UNHCR to guarantee the health, security, safety, and welfare of those waiting in camps in Mexico.
Indeed, the Biden Administration could and should already have put this very straightforward, achievable program in place during its first year in office, instead of “treading water” (or worse, in many cases)!
Biden promised to establish a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system. Has he done it?
Paul Schmidt, a former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, doesn’t think so. He claims that Biden could have established due process and the rule of law at the border and expanded refugee programs in potential sending countries but he didn’t, “preferring instead to use modified versions of ‘proven to fail deterrence-only programs’ administered largely by Trump-era holdovers and other bureaucrats insensitive to the rights, needs, and multiple motivations of asylum seekers.”
Predictably, nobody is pleased.
The problems Schmidt describes are not limited to the border and the treatment of asylum seekers. They are reflected in many of Biden’s other immigration measures too.
Nolan Rappaport for the Hill reports that Paul Schmidt, former chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals who now blogs at Immigration Courtside, does not think that President Biden has done enough on immigration. Schmidt claims that Biden could have established due process and the rule of law at the border and expanded refugee programs in potential sending countries but he didn’t, “preferring instead to use modified versions of ‘proven to fail deterrence-only programs’ administered largely by Trump-era holdovers and other bureaucrats insensitive to the rights, needs, and multiple motivations of asylum seekers.”
Thanks, guys! As I have told both of you, I really appreciate the huge contributions you have made to informing the public about this all-important, yet often misunderstood or “mythologized,” issue!
Following up on my last thought, I urge everyone to view this recent clip from “Face the Nation,” posted by Kevin on ImmigrationProf, in which reporter Ed O’Keefe succinctly and cogently explains how immigration is the “most underreported issue of 2021.” It’s fundamental to everything from COVID, to the economy, to voting rights, to racial justice, to climate change, to our position in the world.
And, I say that the absolute dysfunctional mess that Garland has presided over in hisbroken and jaw-droppingly backlogged Immigration Courts is the most widely ignored, misunderstood, mishandled, and under-appreciated part of this under-reporting!
As an example of how even “mainstream liberal progressive pundits” get it wrong by not focusing on the spectacular adverse effects of Garland’s botched handling of the Immigration Courts, check out this article by Mark Joseph Stern over at Slate. https://apple.news/AvmEJc5V0RXa8hCgKICcTOA
Overlooking Garland’s disastrous mis-handling of his “wholly owned” U.S. Immigration Courts and the unparalleled “missed opportunity” to put more brilliant progressive judges on the Federal Bench is an all too common “blind spot” for progressive pundits. Mark Joseph Stern Reporter, Slate
Stern does a “victory lap” over Biden’s 40 great Article III judicial appointments to the lower Federal Courts, closing with the astounding claim that: “Democrats are finally playing hardball with the courts.”
In truth, Dems are only belatedly starting to do what the GOP has been doing over four decades: Get your guys in the positions where they make a difference for better (Dems, in theory) or worse (GOP in practice).
Appointing a diverse, talented, progressive group of 40 out of 870 Article III Judges is an important, necessary, and long, long overdue start; but, it’s not going to make a cosmic difference overnight!
By contrast, there are about 550 Immigration Judges, the majority appointed by GOP restrictionist AGs, many with mediocre to totally inadequate credentials for the job. And, it shows in the consistently substandard performance and mistake-riddled, haphazard “jurisprudence” emanating from Garland’s EOIR.
The main qualifications for a number of these pedestrian to totally outrageous appointments appears to be willingness to carry out former GOP AGs’ restrictionist, nativist policies, or at least to adhere to the DOJ’s enforcement-oriented agenda, while ignoring, distinguishing, or downplaying the due process rights of migrants!
This is “complimented” by an appellate branch (the BIA) with about two dozen judges hand-selected or retained for notorious anti-immigrant records or willingness to “go along to get along” with the wishes of DHS Enforcement. The BIA turns out some truly horrible, almost invariably regressive, “precedents.” A number are so lacking in substance and coherent analysis that they are unceremoniously “stomped” by the Article IIIs despite limitations on judicial review and the travesty of so-called “Chevron deference” that serves as a grotesque example of Supremes-created “judicial task avoidance” by the Article IIIs.
From an informed Dem progressive perspective, it’s an infuriating, ongoing, unmitigated disaster! Only one BIA appellate judge, recently appointed “progressive practical scholar” Judge Andrea Saenz, would appear on any expert’s list of the “best and brightest” progressive legal minds in the field.
Unlike Article III Judges, who are life-tenured, EOIR Judges serve at the pleasure and discretion of the Attorney General and can be replaced and reassigned, including to non-quasi-judicial attorney positions, “at will.”
Starting with Attorney General John Ashcroft’s notorious “BIA Purge of ‘03,”GOP AGs haven’t hesitated to remove, transfer, “force out,” marginalize, demoralize, discourage from applying, or simply not select EOIR judges who stood for due process and immigrants’ rights in the face of nativist/restrictionist political agendas.
Yet, for eight years of the Obama Administration and now a year into the Biden Administration, Dem AGs have lacked the guts, awareness, and vision to fight back by “de-weaponizing” the regressive GOP-constructed Immigration Judiciary and recruiting replacements from among the “best and the brightest” among the “deep pool” of expert, intellectually fearless “progressive practical scholars.”
Not only that, but Dems have totally blown a unique opportunity to remake and establish the Immigration Judiciary not only as “America’s best judiciary” — a model for better Article IIIs — but also as a training ground for the diverse progressive judiciary of the future!
Even more significantly, tens of thousands of lives that should have been saved by an expert, due-process-oriented, racially sensitive judiciary have been, and continue to be, sacrificed on the alter of GOP nativism and Dem indifference to quality judging and human suffering in the Immigration Courts!
Compare the diverse, progressive backgrounds and qualifications of “Stern’s 40” with those on the totally underwhelming list of the most recent Garland “giveaways” of precious, life-determining Immigration Judge positions! See, e.g., https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1457171/download
The progressive talent is definitely out there to change the trajectory of the Immigration Courts for the better! Garland’s failure to inspire, recruit, appoint, and tout the “best and brightest” in American law for his Immigration Courts is a horrible “whiff” with disturbing national and international implications!
Article III Federal Courts deal with the mundane as well as the profound. By contrast, lives and futures are on the line in every single Immigration Court case! Often effective judicial review of EOIR’s haphazard, widely inconsistent, unprincipled, and one-sided decisions is unavailable, either as a legal or practical matter. The exceptionally poor performance of the Immigration Courts that continues under Garland threatens the underpinnings of our entire justice system and American democracy!
Right now, Garland’s broken system has a largely self-created 1.5+ million case ever-expanding backlog! At a very conservative estimate of four family members, co-workers, employees, employers, students, co-religionists, neighbors, and community members whose lives are intertwined with each of those stuck in Garland’s hopelessly broken, biased, and deficient system, at least 6 million American lives hang in the balance — twisting in the wind among Garland’s “backlog on steroids!” Yet, amazingly, it’s “below the radar screen” of Stern and other leading progressive voices!
I doubt that any Federal Court in America, with the possible exception of the Supremes, holds as many human lives and futures in its hands. Not to mention that “dehumanization” and “Dred Scottification” of the other in Immigration Court drifts over into the Article III Courts on a regular basis. Once you start viewing one group of humans as “less than persons” under the Constitution, it’s easy to add others to the “de-personification” process.
Yet, Garland cavalierly treats the Immigration Courts as just another mundane piece of his reeling bureaucratic mess at the DOJ. The long overdue and completely justified “housecleaning” at Trump’s anti-democracy insurrectionist regime seems far from Garland’s serenely detached mind!
For Pete’s sake, even ICE Special Agents understand the need to “rebrand” themselves by escaping the inept and disreputable ICE bureaucracy left over from Trump:
They say their affiliation with ICE’s immigration enforcement role is endangering their personal safety, stifling their partnerships with other agencies and scaring away crime victims, according to a copy of the report provided to The Washington Post.
But, Garland doesn’t understand the well-deserved toxic reputation of EOIR among legal experts? Gimme a break!
Garland also stands accountable for his spineless failure to insist on a dismantling of the bogus, illegal, immoral, and ultimately ineffectual Title 42 abomination at the Southern Border and an immediate return to the rule of law for asylum seekers.
Unless and until the Dems get serious about gutsy, radical progressive reforms of the Immigration Courts, the downward spiral of American justice will continue! Lives will be lost, and many of those who helped put Dems in power will be pissed off and “de-motivated” going into the midterms. That’s a really bad plan for Dems and for America’s future!
As Dems’ hopes of achieving meaningful Article III judicial reforms predictably are stymied, their inexcusable failure to reform and improve the Immigraton Courts that belong to them becomes a gargantuan, totally unnecessary “missed opportunity!” Talk about “unforced error!” See, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/12/28/supreme-court-term-limits/
If Dems suffer an “enthusiasm gap” among their key progressive base going into the key 2022 midterms, they need look no further than Garland’s tone-deaf and inept failure to bring long overdue and readily achievable progressive personnel, procedural, management, and substantive reforms to his dysfunctional Immigration Courts. That — not a false sense of achievement — should have been the “headliner” for Stern and other progressive voices!
“Expedience over excellence, enforcement over equity, gimmicks over innovation is good enough for Government work!” — The “vision” for Garland’s EOIR! But, progressive experts aren’t buying his “tunnel vision.” PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
