"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.
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Professor Paulina Vera
Submitted by Professor Alberto Benitez at GW Law Immigration Clinic:
The entry submission period for the FY2025 Diversity Visa lottery is from 12:00 pm (ET) on October 4, 2023, to 12:00 pm (ET) on November 7, 2023. Please see the attached.
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLG
Michelle writes:
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 7:38 PM
While the facts were definitely bad in this case, I do think the decision provides a helpful framework for a fairly common issue–impeachment leading to adverse credibility– whereas before we did not have a framework and relied on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Through this decision, we now know and can argue that impeachment evidence may contribute to a credibility determination only where the evidence is probative and its admission is not fundamentally unfair, and the witness is given an opportunity to respond to that evidence during the proceedings. It is up to us to enforce these limitations. Furthermore, note a few helpful footnotes. Footnote 3 notes that proceedings were continued after DHS submitted impeachment evidence and both parties were given the opportunity to provide evidence and argument. This is what should happen. Footnote 4 refers to DHS correctly using the evidence as impeachment evidence as opposed to submitting late-filed evidence under the guise of impeachment, which is what usually happens and we must object to. Footnote 5 reminds us tochallenge the IJ’s determination that the border official’s notes are accurate and reliable pursuant to Matter of J-C-H-F-, 27 I&N Dec. 211, 216 (BIA 2018), which is a case we cover during our trial skills trainings. All in all, a bad outcome for this respondent, but a helpful case to the rest of us who want to avoid a similar outcome.
Michelle
N. Méndez | she/her/ella/elle
Director of Legal Resources and Training
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
Thanks Michelle, my friend!Please note that Michelle is now Director of Legal Resources & Training at NIPNLG and has provided her new contact information above.
NDPA advocates should also check out these other recent practice advisories from Michelle and her terrific team that transitioned from CLINIC to NIPNLG, two of which were in partnership with ILRC:
Practice Advisory: Understanding and Overcoming Bars to Relief Triggered by a Prior Removal Order (June 29, 2022):
I always offered the respondent a continuance to examine the impeachment evidence. However, few took my offer. I think that was because:
For those in detention, it meant further extending the period of detention;
For those on the always backlogged non-detained docket, continuances often meant months before the hearing could resume.
Instead, most counsel just took my offer of a short recess to examine the evidence and discuss it with the respondent.
As Michelle points out, it will be up to counsel to insure that these rules are enforced. In the “rush to deny for any reason” — still a major “cultural” problem at EOIR that Garland has failed to systemically address — precedents and aspects of precedents favorable to the respondent are too often ignored, glossed over, or distinguished on bogus grounds. It’s up to the NDPA to “hold EOIR Judges’ and ICE ACCs’ feet to the fire” on these points!
Garland had a chance to bring in folks like Michelle and other NDPA superstars to “clean up” EOIR and restore first class scholarship, due process, and fundamental fairness as the mission, but failed to do so. The results of his failure are pretty ugly, especially for those individuals seeking justice in a dysfunctional system where fair, legally correct results are a “crap shoot” 🎲 — at best! It doesn’t have to be that way!
Alert for Asylum Seekers – Consult with an Immigration Attorney if you Haven’t Filed your Case before January 11, 2020
Over the summer, the U.S. government proposed a set of regulations that will dramatically change asylum law. In response, the public and immigrant advocates submitted close to 90,000 public comments. The Government changed some of the proposed rules, slightly, but the new rules are set to go into effect on January 11, 2021. There will likely be legal challenges (lawsuits) to try to stop the regulations from going into effect. But, it’s always hard to tell what will happen. One of the changes made between July 15, 2020 and December 2020 to the proposed rules is that they will not be retroactive. This means that they will not apply to anyone who has filed their I-589 Application for asylum before January 11, 2021. The Government is saying that the new rules will apply now and despite any legal challenge to any sections that the Government views as simply codifying existing case law. But, it is likely much better for asylum seekers to have their applications filed prior to January 11, 2021. This is especially for people fleeing harm from non-government actors, for asylum seekers fleeing gender-based harm, and for individuals who have spent time in another country before coming to the U.S. If you are seeking asylum, please consult with an immigration attorney as soon as possible. An I-589 asylum application takes hours to properly fill out and you will need to have time to work with an attorney to prepare your application and get it mailed before January 11, 2021. If you are an asylum seeker in need of assistance, please contact Lindsay.harris@udc.edu, Vice-Chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s National Asylum & Refugee Committee and Associate Professor and Director of the Immigration & Human Rights Clinic at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law.
Lindsay M. Harris (she/her/hers)
Associate Professor of Law
Director, Immigration & Human Rights Clinic
University of the District of Columbia
David A. Clarke school of Law
********************
Thanks Lindsay, my friend!
One of the points that I can’t overemphasize is the importance of getting legal assistance to fully, carefully, and accurately fill out the asylum application (Form I-589).
Variances between the written application and supporting documentation and testimony before the Asylum Office or Immigration Court have always been problematic.
But, under the current White Nationalist restrictionist regime, Asylum Officers and Immigration Judgesare encouraged to “fly speck” asylum applications for any variances, no matter how minor, that can be used to find the applicant “not credible.” While this is both a violation of the statute and the case law in most Circuits, it’s a reality that asylum applicants must deal with.
It’s a particular problem given the hiring of many new Immigration Judges with no expertise in asylum laws, no sympathy for asylum seekers, no experience representing asylum seekers, subject to production quotas that encourage them to use “any reason to deny” an asylum application, and basically imbued with the “propaganda” that most asylum applications are without merit.
My own experience, although now in the past, is that many asylum seekers incorrectly assume that the Form I-589 is just a “rough outline” of the claim and that they will be allowed to fill in blanks, obtain additional documentation, and explain problems in full at a later time. That wasn’t true in the past, and is even less so now.
What and how things are said in the written asylum application can have a determinative effect before both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Court! “First instance denials” by Immigration Judges are very hard to reverse on appeal, particularly when based on “adverse credibility rulings.”
So, preparing the application carefully with assistance from someone who understands exactly how the Immigraton Court system works (or doesn’t) is essential!
Opening statements and closing arguments can win cases for clients, if the practitioner is able to deliver a performance that is both concise and compelling. This practice advisory offers guidance and tips that will help practitioners deliver concise and compelling opening statements and closing arguments in immigration court.
**********************
Read more and download this wonderful resource at the link.
Michelle and her team @ CLINIC promise more “great stuff” next week.
Going in Opposite Directions: Ironically, as the Trump DOJ has worked overtime to “dumb down” EOIR, Michelle and many others in the Immigration & Human Rights communities, particularly AILA, other NGOs, Clinical Professors, and pro bono counsel at “Big Law,” have been working even harder to promote “best immigration and legal practices” before all tribunals. And, despite the Supreme’s “willful blindness” to the Constitution, the rule of law, and human dignity as it applies to asylum seekers and migrants, the results are showing elsewhere in the justice system.
It also points to the obvious unconscionably overlooked untapped source for better Federal Judges in the future, from the Supremes to the Immigration Courts: the pro bono and clinical immigration and human rights bars — actually the main fount of courageous opposition to the regime’s concerted attack on our Constitution, our justice system, and our humanity.
If these folks and others like them were on the Supremes, American justice wouldn’t be in shambles and equal justice justice for all under our Constitution would actually be enforced, rather than degraded or intentionally skirted with legal gobbledygook. The lack of both legal and moral leadership from our highest Court in the face of a clearly out of control and unqualified White Nationalist Executive and his toadies is simply astounding, not to mention discouraging.
It’s little wonder that the tensions caused in no small measure by the Court’s systemic failure to stand up for voting rights, civil rights, the rights of other persons of color in the U.S., and to hold abusers at all levels accountable, is now overflowing into the streets. No, an occasional vote for a correct result from Roberts or another member of “The Five” is not going to solve the problem of Constitutional, racial, and moral dereliction of duty by our highest Court.
Almost every day, “real” Article III Lower Courts “out” some aspect of the outrageously biased and unprofessional performance of EOIR and the rest of Trump’s immigration kakistocracy before the courts. Even some GOP and Trump appointed Article III Judges have “had enough” and don’t want their professional reputations and consciences sullied by association with the regime’s unlawful White Nationalist agenda.
Unfortunately, however, the Federal Courts generally have failed to follow through by sanctioning the often unethical and dishonest performance of the regime in court and by shutting down EOIR’s unconstitutional “kangaroo courts,” DHS’s equally unconstitutional “New American Gulag,” and the fraudulent operation of bogus “Safe Third County Agreements,” “Remain in Mexico,” and patiently disingenuous ridiculously overbroad COVID-19 “immigration bars” (which are actually thin cover for Stephen Miller’s preconceived White Nationalist nativist agenda). Moreover, lower Federal Court Judges who courageously stand up against the regime’s unconstitutional agenda and program of “dehumanization” are too often improperly undermined by the Supremes (sometimes without explanations or “short circuiting” the system), thereby “greenlighting” further “crimes against humanity” by an unscrupulous and unethical Executive.
We’re making a permanent record of both the “crimes against humanity” committed by the regime and those public officials, be they so-called “public servants,” feckless legislators, or life-tenured judges who have actively aided, abetted, been complicit, or “gone along to get along” with Trump’s countless lies and abuses. Later judicial “corrections” by a better Court or legislative “fixes” by a real Congress will not reclaim the lives of those shot on the streets by police, infected with COVID-19 in the Gulag, kidnapped and abused by gangs in Mexico while waiting for fake hearings, or “rocketed” back to persecution and torture in the Northern Triangle and elsewhere in violation of U.S. and international laws without any meaningful process at all. Nor will they wipe out the abuses by governments at all levels elected without the full participation of American citizens of color and in poverty whose votes were purposely suppressed or political authority diminished by corrupt GOP pols and their Supreme enablers.
As we can see by the long-overdue historical reckoning coming to Confederates and other racists who actively worked to undermine our Constitution, block equal justice for all, and dehumanize other humans in America, there will be an eventual historical reckoning here, and justice ultimately will be served, even if not in our lifetimes. That’s bad news for Roberts, his right-wing colleagues, and a host of others who have willfully enabled the worst, most abusive, and most clearly lawless presidency in U.S. History, as well as the most overtly racist regime since Woodrow Wilson.
Due Process Forever!
This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!
JOIN THE NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY (“NDPA”) & BE PART OF THE SOLUTION TO UNEQUAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA!
