"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.
UNDER THE Trump administration, deportation agents have arrested unauthorized immigrants with no criminal records at more than three times the rate they were arrested during the final two years of the Obama administration. That may be surprising given the White House’s relentless and sweeping characterization of such migrants as dangerous criminals, gang members and, in the president’s own words, “bad hombres.”
Or maybe not so surprising. Multiple studies have shown that immigrants generally commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born Americans. New data — the most comprehensive to date — suggest there is also no correlation between illegal immigrants and higher crime rates. Notwithstanding the president’s inflammatory rhetoric, most undocumented immigrants are law-abiding, which may help explain the growing percentage of those picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who have no crime on their records.
The new data come from studies undertaken by the Pew Research Center and the Marshall Project, both nonpartisan outfits. Crunching the numbers, Pew broke down changes in the number of unauthorized immigrants in each of some 180 metropolitan areas in the decade that ended in 2016. Using those figures and places, the Marshall Project compared them with local rates of violent and property crime from the Uniform Crime Reporting program, published by the FBI.
The results showed that crime declined in the large majority of those metro areas, as it has for more than 20 years throughout the United States generally, whether the number of undocumented migrants increased or decreased in a particular place. Anna Flagg, a senior data reporter for the Marshall Project, wrote that “changes in undocumented populations had little or no effect on crime in the various metro areas under survey.” There was some data, albeit inconclusive, suggesting that crime fell even more in places with greater numbers of illegal immigrants.
As is often the case, the facts fly in the face of the Trump administration’s agenda, which is to convince Americans that undocumented migrants are a frightening threat. Nonetheless, the new data dovetail with several previous studies — from the libertarian Cato Institute; from Governing Magazine; and from Criminology, an academic journal — that also show no correlation between unauthorized immigration and crime rates. As The Post’s Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, wrote this year, “the available research indicates that, when compared to U.S. citizens, illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes.”
By bending the data — or, in this case, ignoring facts to suit their own cynical political narrative — Trump administration officials have engaged in demagoguery and scare tactics, the better to whip up xenophobic hysteria. President Trump himself has made it clear he believes that strategy was critical to his electoral success in 2016; there is every indication he will revive and amplify it in the 2020 cycle.
This is Trumpism at its ugliest: turning truth on its head; vilifying the “other”; sowing hatred and fear. It is un-American at its core; it’s also the president’s stock in trade.
******************************************
White Nationalism and racism won’t resolve immigration issues. There is a pretty good socio-economic argument that much of Trump’s overblown, expensive, arbitrary, and capricious civil enforcement of immigration laws does more harm than good, removing productive members of our communities and often leaving unnecessary pain and suffering behind. Not too mention tying up public and private resources that could better be spent on things more beneficial to society.
Even by President Trump’s pyrotechnic standards, his announcement on Thursday that he will impose a sweeping 5 percent tariff on all Mexican goods coming into the United States unless Mexico stops the flow of illegal immigration is unprecedented. The threat is unjustifiably heavy-handed and will further erode cooperation in bilateral relations as the contentious debate over immigration spills into areas that had been successfully compartmentalized.
Above all, Trump’s threat illustrates his absolute disinterest in reaching a sensible understanding.
Late on Thursday, López Obrador answered Washington with a long letter that included a lecture on American history, a brief declaration of discrepancy with Trump’s methods and a mellifluous plea for productive and urgent dialogue. Good luck with that.
Trump’s latest salvo also illustrates the profound rift in the different approaches to solve the humanitarian crisis that first began in Central America’s “Northern Triangle” of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
Early last week in Mexico City, Alicia Bárcena, head of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, revealed an ambitious development project for Mexico’s southeast and the troubled Northern Triangle.
“Why do people choose to leave?” Bárcena asked. “The lack of a basic source of income and economic opportunity is one of the main reasons.” She went on to explain how inequality, violence and global warming have also fueled the emergency. Bárcena then suggested what she called an “innovative” solution to the problem: Rather than focus on punishing measures to deter immigration, the region should instead emphasize growth through cooperation. López Obrador, sitting a few feet away, nodded. “This plan is important because it goes to the heart of the matter,” López Obrador later added. “People emigrate out of necessity. There’s no other way but to cooperate in search of development.”
But López Obrador’s words belied his own government’s actions.
Contrary to Trump’s unfounded complaints, Mexico has actually implemented myriad other, more bruising ways to try to stem the flow of immigrants toward the United States. In a somewhat schizophrenic policy, it has simultaneously slashed funding for the agencies assigned to handle refugees within the country while executing some of the most punitive schemes put in place by the Trump administration. Not exactly development-oriented actions.
Still, López Obrador insists that the only long-term solution to the current immigration crisis lies in opening new areas of opportunity for the hundreds of thousands of Central Americans who decide to migrate. All three Northern Triangle countries seem to agree: Diplomats for Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador surrounded López Obrador for Bárcena’s presentation in Mexico City.
The problem, of course, is the one country missing from this seemingly unanimous show of goodwill: the United States.
For six months now, López Obrador has tried to persuade the Trump administration to invest billions in Central America rather than just focus on enforcement. Just a few days after Bárcena’s impassioned announcement, López Obrador dispatched Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard to sell Trump’s team on regional development. Ebrard didn’t go far. While he did meet with acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin K. McAleenan and Jared Kushner, he was snubbed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who canceled a previously scheduled meeting with his Mexican counterpart. Ebrard flew back empty-handed.
Is Mexico being naive? Clearly. To acquiesce to an investment project for Central America would require a complete about-face in Trump’s hostility toward the region. Before Trump announced that he will suspend all aid to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador as punishment for their supposed inaction to prevent the migrant exodus, the United States had assigned slightly more than $180 million in funding for the three countries combined in 2019, less than 2 percent of the amount Mexico would like to see the United States provide the area through aid and investment in the coming years.
Getting Trump to invest seems like a long shot. Just how long? The White House isn’t exactly masking his invective.
Aside from the drastic imposition of tariffs, the Trump administration is also apparently considering limiting the ability of potential migrants to request asylum in the United States if they have traveled by land through Mexico, a radical change that could create an unmanageable bottleneck and humanitarian crisis of catastrophic proportions for Mexico’s unprepared and underfunded government agencies.
As if that weren’t enough, consider McAleenan’s visit to Central America this week. McAleenan did indeed carry with him a message of collaboration, but certainly not in the areas Ebrard and Bárcena might have hoped for.
On Wednesday, McAleenan met with the Guatemalan Ministry of Government to sign a formal memorandum of cooperation that focuses almost exclusively on enforcement. “Both countries have agreed to take concrete actions necessary to combat the scourge of human trafficking and smuggling, interdict illicit drug trafficking, and target illegal trade and financial flows,” the Department of Homeland Security explained in a statement. “This will include law enforcement training and collaboration to improve criminal investigations.”
The region’s long-term development merited only the vaguest of mentions. In theory, DHS said, the agreement will “improve the ability of both countries to identify and better understand” the root causes of immigration. That’s a long way from the kind of commitment needed to rebuild an impoverished, violent and drought-stricken region.
On Wednesday, I asked a spokesman for Mexico’s foreign ministry about the development plan’s outlook if the Trump administration ultimately declines to join. “Their support is important,” he told me. “But we don’t need the United States. This is our plan.”
This bravado is misguided. The United States is not just another actor in the current drama. Without it — or worse, with the Trump administration as rabid antagonist — a regional bet on Central America’s future will face impossible odds.
**************************************
The issue can’t be solved without addressing the forces that are sending migrants north;
The U.S. bears considerable responsibility for Central America’s current problems;
Therefore, U.S. acceptance of responsibility and meaningful participation in the solution is essential;
Any solution will require the U.S. to accept a robust number of those forced to flee the Northern Triangle;
A solution will take time; the longer the Trump Administration dawdles, the more the problems leading to forced migration will fester and grow;
Unilateral law enforcement, gimmicks, and threats can’t solve the problem and are in fact proving to be counterproductive;
The Trump Administration’s current approach is not only spectacularly unsuccessful, but will sow regional resentment against the U.S. for decades to come.
Professor Richard J. Price, Jr., writes for the ABA’s Judges Journal:
May 01, 2019 FEATURE
The Scope of the Removal Power Is Ripe for Reconsideration
By Richard J. Pierce Jr.
Share this:
I have been teaching and writing about the power of the president to remove officers of the United States for over 40 years. Until recently, however, I have been content to describe the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions that address the scope issue without attempting to persuade the Court to change its approach to the issue.
The issue has become particularly important in the last few years for two reasons. First, the scope issue has become particularly important because of the increasing controversy that surrounds the scope of the removal power in the context of officers who perform purely adjudicatory functions. In its 2018 opinion in Lucia v. SEC, the Supreme Court held that Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administrative law judges (ALJs) are officers of the United States.1 The holding is broad enough to encompass virtually all ALJs and administrative judges (AJs).2 In a brief filed in the Supreme Court in that case, the solicitor general (SG) tried to persuade the Court to hold that the longstanding limits on the power to remove an ALJ are either invalid or meaningless.3 Those limits are based on due process. The Court decided not to address the removal issue in that case, but it is only a matter of time until the Court addresses the issue.The second reason the scope issue has become particularly important is tied to the growing movement to broaden the scope of the power of the president to remove officers who perform executive functions. That effort is motivated by concern that limits on the removal power interfere impermissibly with the president’s responsibility to perform the functions vested in the president by Article II of the Constitution.Thus, for instance, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the removal power and reduced the power of Congress to limit the removal power in its 2010 opinion in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.4 The Court held that Congress cannot limit the president’s removal power by imposing two or more layers of for-cause limits on the removal power. Because the president can only remove a member of the SEC for cause, the Court wrote that the for-cause limit on the SEC’s power to remove members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) violated Article II.
A panel of the D.C. Circuit took a step beyond Free Enterprise Fund in 2016, holding that the single layer for-cause limit on the president’s power to remove the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) violated Article II.5 The en banc D.C. Circuit overturned that decision, but there are reasons to believe that final resolution of the issue is far from over. The judge who wrote the panel opinion, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, was appointed to the Supreme Court, where he will be in a better position to influence the outcome of the inevitable future disputes about the scope of the removal power. In 2018, a panel of the Fifth Circuit renewed the dispute in an analogous context by holding unconstitutional the for-cause limit on the president’s power to remove the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).6
This article looks at the history of Supreme Court cases addressing removal power. Based on a discussion of those cases, including a landmark opinion written by former chief justice (and former president) William Howard Taft, the article concludes that the Supreme Court should hold that the president must have the power to remove at will any officer who performs executive functions to enable the president to perform the functions vested in the president by Article II. By contrast, the article concludes that the Court should hold that due process precludes the president from having the power to remove at will an officer whose sole responsibilities are to adjudicate disputes between private parties and the government.
Methodology and Findings
I began my effort to understand the scope issue by reading and studying with care all of the major judicial decisions that have addressed the scope issue. I came away from that effort with two pleasant surprises. First, with two exceptions, the opinions are better reasoned than I remembered. Second, with the same two exceptions, the opinions form a coherent and consistent pattern. Courts consistently protect the president’s power to perform the functions vested in him by Article II by holding that he or one of his immediate subordinates must have the power to remove at will any officer who performs purely executive functions. At the same time, courts consistently protect the due process rights of parties to disputes with the government by limiting the power of the president or an agency head to remove any officer who performs purely adjudicatory functions.
The President Must Have the Power to Remove At Will Officers Who Perform Executive Functions
The logical starting point in any attempt to understand the opinions that address the scope of the removal power is the 1926 opinion of Chief Justice William Howard Taft in Myers v. United States.7 That opinion upheld President Woodrow Wilson’s decision to remove a postmaster from office. It is often described as holding that Congress cannot limit in any way the president’s power to remove any officer. That description is incomplete in ways that are misleading. Taft’s 71-page opinion addressed many issues with care.
Taft did not focus on President Wilson’s removal of postmaster Myers in the 1920s. He focused primarily on President Andrew Johnson’s decision to remove the Secretary of War in the 1860s. He also did not address explicitly the issue that has drawn most of the attention of courts—whether Congress can limit the president’s removal power by requiring a statement of cause for removing an officer. The restriction on removal at issue in Myers was the Tenure in Office Act, a statute that Congress enacted in 1867. That statute purported to limit the president’s removal power by requiring the president to obtain the permission of the Senate before removing any officer. The opinion in Myers was the logical antecedent to modern opinions like INS v. Chadha8 and Bowsher v. Synar,9 in which the Court held that Congress cannot aggrandize itself by giving itself a role in performing functions that are vested in the president by Article II.
Taft discussed in detail the controversy that led Congress to enact the Tenure in Office Act and to impeach and attempt to remove from office President Johnson for refusing to comply with that statute by firing the Secretary of War without first obtaining the permission of the Senate. Congress and President Johnson differed dramatically with respect to the most important question at the time—how to reconstruct the country after the Civil War. Congress enacted the Tenure in Office Act in an effort to make it impossible for President Johnson to exercise the powers vested in him by Article II in the context of his attempt to reunite and reconstruct the country.
In the course of his lengthy opinion, Taft described and supported three broad propositions that are important to an understanding of the removal power. First, he explained why the president must be able to appoint many officers to be able to perform effectively the functions vested in the president by Article II. The task is far too massive to be accomplished by a president without the aid of agents. Second, he explained why the president must have the discretion to remove officers at will. If an officer attempts to move the nation in a direction that is inconsistent with the president’s policies, the president cannot perform the functions vested in him by Article II unless he has the discretion to remove that officer. Third, if Congress wants to make it impossible for the president to perform the functions vested in him by Article II, it can do so most effectively by limiting the power of the president to remove an officer. To Chief Justice (and former president) Taft, it followed that Congress cannot limit the president’s discretion to remove officers with executive functions.
I find Taft’s explanation of his three broad propositions persuasive, particularly coming from a former president. Many of the most important later opinions repeat and build on Taft’s reasoning and conclusions in Myers. Thus, for instance, the opinion in Free EnterpriseFund supports its ban on multiple levels of for-cause limits on the removal power with reference to the reasoning in Myers.10The Free Enterprise Fund opinion supplements the reasoning in Myers with reasoning based on political accountability, such as the public cannot know who is responsible for a government policy decision unless the president has the power to remove a policymaking official at will.
Similarly, Judge (now Justice) Kavanaugh used reasoning like the reasoning in Myers, supplemented by reasoning based on political accountability, in his opinion that held unconstitutional the for-cause limit on the president’s power to remove the director of the CFPB. Thus, for instance, he emphasized that the director “unilaterally implements and enforces [19] federal consumer protection statutes, covering everything from home finance to credit cards to banking practices.”11 He reasoned that anyone with that broad range of executive responsibilities must be removable by the president at will to allow the president to perform the functions vested in him by Article II and to allow the public to hold the president accountable for the policies the government adopts and attempts to further in each of the many contexts in which the director has the unilateral power to make and implement policy on behalf of the government. The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in support of its holding of the for-cause limit on the president’s power to remove the director of the FHFA12 is virtually identical to the reasoning in Judge (now Justice) Kavanaugh’s opinion with respect to the director of the CFPB.
Taft’s opinion in Myers also includes another discussion that is important to an understanding of the Court’s views with respect to the appropriate scope of the removal power. He devoted several pages of his opinion to discussion of the postmaster’s argument that he could not be removed at will because the Court had upheld limits on the power of the president to remove territorial judges.13 After discussing the conflicting opinions in which the Court had addressed that question, the chief justice referred with apparent approval to the opinion of Justice John McLean:
He pointed out that the argument upon which the decision rested was based on the necessity for presidential removals in the discharge by the President of his executive duties and his taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and that such an argument could not apply to the judges, over whose judicial duties he could not properly exercise any supervision or control after their appointment and confirmation.14
The chief justice then explicitly disavowed any intent to apply the reasoning and holding in Myers to non-Article III judges: “The questions, . . . whether * * * Congress may provide for [a territorial judge’s] removal in some other way, present considerations different from those which apply in the removal of executive officers, and therefore we do not decide them.”15
The opinion in Free Enterprise Fund includes a similar explicit disavowal of any intent to apply its reasoning or holding to officers who perform adjudicative functions, noting that “administrative law judges perform adjudicative functions rather than enforcement functions.”16
Due Process Limits the Power to Remove Officers Who Perform Only Adjudicative Functions
A few years after it issued its opinion in Myers, the Court issued its famous opinion in Humphrey’s Executorv. United States.17 The Court upheld the statutory for-cause limit on the president’s power to remove a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner. The opinion in Humphrey’s Executor has traditionally been interpreted to be inconsistent with the opinion in Myers and to authorize Congress to create agencies with vast power that are “independent” of the president. Neither of those interpretations is supported by the reasoning in the Humphrey’s Executor opinion and the context in which the opinion was issued. The opinion in Humphrey’s Executor can support an interpretation that reconciles it with the opinion in Myers and that does not legitimate the concept of multifunction agencies that are independent of the president.
The FTC of 1935 was nothing like the modern FTC or the agencies that have been the subject of the recent decisions that have held invalid restrictions on the removal of officers—PCAOB, CFPB, and FHFA. Each of those agencies has the power to make policy decisions on behalf of the government by issuing legislative rules that have the same legally binding effect as a statute. By contrast, the FTC of 1935 had no power to make policy through the issuance of rules or through any other means.
The Court distinguished the functions performed by the FTC from the executive functions performed by the officers who were the subject of the holding in Myers. The Court characterized the FTC of 1935 as a “quasi legislative and quasi-judicial” body.18 In its capacity as a quasi-legislative body, the FTC of 1935 performed the functions that are performed by congressional staff and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) today. Congress had little staff support until 1946, and CRS was not created until 1970.19 In 1935, Congress had to rely on the FTC to study the performance of markets and to make recommendations with respect to the need to enact legislation to authorize regulation of markets. FTC reports to Congress were the basis for many statutes, including the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Power Act.20 It made sense for Congress to insulate the officers in charge of conducting research for Congress from at-will removal by the president.
In its capacity as a quasi-judicial body, the FTC acted as a specialized forum to adjudicate trade disputes. The Court analogized it to the Court of Claims.21 In its adjudicative capacity, the FTC of 1935 was also analogous to the Territorial Courts that the MyersCourt distinguished from agencies that perform executive functions. As the Myers Court recognized, the president “could not properly exercise any supervision or control” over judges who were appointed to the Territorial Courts.22 It follows that a for-cause limit on the power of the president to remove a commissioner of the FTC of 1935 was entirely consistent with the holding in Myers that the president must have the power to remove at-will officers who perform executive functions.
The Court followed its opinion in Humphrey’s Executor with its 1958 opinion in Wiener v. United States.23 The Court held that the president could not remove a member of the three-member War Claims Tribunal without stating a cause for removal. Wiener can be interpreted to support the proposition that due process limits the power of the president to remove an officer with adjudicative responsibilities. There was no statutory limit on the president’s power to remove a member of the War Claims Tribunal. The Court adopted a construction of the statute that included such a limit because the Tribunal was tasked only with “adjudicating [claims] according to law, that is on the merits of each claim, supported by evidence and governing legal considerations.”24 The Court reasoned that Congress intended the members of the Tribunal to have the same freedom from potential outside influences that the judges of the district courts and the Court of Claims had.25 It followed that the president could not remove a member of the Tribunal without stating a cause for removal.
In the meantime, Congress was engaged in a lengthy investigation and debate to devise and implement means of ensuring that the hearing examiners (later renamed ALJs) who presided in hearings to adjudicate disputes between private parties and the government did so in an unbiased manner.26 Many parties who participated in those adjudications complained that ALJs behaved in ways that reflected a powerful bias in favor of the government. Many studies supported the claims of bias.
After 17 years of investigation and debate, Congress addressed the problem of bias in 1946 by enacting the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by unanimous voice vote in both the House and Senate.27 The most important provisions of the APA are designed to ensure that ALJs preside over adjudicatory hearings in an unbiased manner. They include provisions that prohibit an agency from determining the compensation of an ALJ,28 assigning an ALJ responsibilities that are inconsistent with the duties of an ALJ,29and, most important, removing or otherwise punishing an ALJ. An ALJ can be removed only for cause found by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) after conducting a formal hearing.30
In its 1950 opinion in Wong Yang Sun v. McGrath,31 the Court praised Congress for investigating the serious problem of bias in hearings conducted to adjudicate disputes between private parties and the government. The Court also praised Congress for including in the APA provisions that greatly reduced the risk of bias by protecting ALJs from agency pressure to conduct hearings in a manner that reflected bias in favor of the agency.32 The Court compared the blatantly biased hearing that the immigration service had provided the private party in the case before the Court with the unbiased hearing that the APA assures.33 The Court held the APA applicable to immigration hearings even though Congress had not explicitly incorporated the APA safeguards of independence in the Immigration Act.34 The Court adopted a saving construction of the Immigration Act to avoid having to hold the statute unconstitutional as a violation of due process.35
Congress reacted angrily to the decision in Wong Yang Sun. It amended the Immigration Act to make it explicit that the APA safeguards of the independence of ALJs did not apply to immigration judges (IJs). Faced with a direct conflict between its views of due process and those of Congress, the Court backed down and upheld the constitutionality of the amended Immigration Act over an argument that it violates due process in its 1955 opinion in Marcello v. Bonds.36 That opinion is one of only two opinions on the removal power that were not well-reasoned and that do not fit the otherwise consistent pattern of opinions that resolve scope of removal disputes based on the functions performed by the officer whose removal is at issue.
In every other opinion, the Court distinguished clearly between officers who perform executive functions and officers who perform adjudicative functions. The Court concluded that officers who perform executive functions must be removable at will in order to ensure that the president can perform the functions vested in him by Article II. The Court concluded that officers who perform adjudicative functions must be protected from at-will removal in order to reduce the risk that they will conduct adjudicatory hearings in ways that reflect pro-government bias in violation of due process. The Court should overrule its holding in Marcello v. Bonds based on the powerful reasoning in its opinion in Wong Yang Sun.
Asylum cases provide the context in which it is most important to ensure that officers with adjudicative responsibilities are able to perform their duties without fear that they will be removed or otherwise punished if they do not act in ways that reflect whatever bias the president and the attorney general might have. Denial of a meritorious application for asylum is almost always followed by removal of the alien from the United States. Thus, denial of a meritorious application for asylum has devastating effects on the applicant, often including a high risk that the applicant will be killed when the applicant is forced to return to the applicant’s country of origin.
The present circumstances illustrate the extreme risk of bias particularly well. Both the president and the attorney general have expressed powerful antipathy toward aliens who seek asylum and have applied extraordinary pressure on IJs to deny applications for asylum. That pressure is virtually certain to influence at least some IJs to deny applications for asylum in some cases in which their unbiased view of the merits would yield a decision granting the application.37 The attorney general has the power to evaluate the performance of IJs and to remove an IJ at will.38 It is unrealistic to believe that all IJs will have the extraordinary courage and strength of character required to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the expectations of the president and the attorney general. The Supreme Court should put an end to the blatantly unconstitutional practice of pressuring IJs to deny applications for asylum.
The only other opinion in which the Court departed from the important principles of constitutional law that underlie most of its decisions was its 1988 opinion in Morrison v. Olson.39 The Court upheld the statutory for-cause limit on the power of the attorney general to remove an independent counsel who had the power to investigate and potentially prosecute a high-ranking executive officer for allegedly engaging in criminal conduct. The Court held that the limit on the removal power was permissible even though the Court characterized prosecution as an executive function.40
As I have explained at length elsewhere, the opinion in Morrison did no harm because, as the Court emphasized repeatedly, the independent counsel had no power to make any policy decision.41 The Court has never upheld a limit on the power to remove an officer who has the power to make policy decisions on behalf of the government. That is by far the most important function that is vested in the president in Article II.
Conclusion
I hope that the Supreme Court holds that the president must have the power to remove at will any officer who performs executive functions to enable the president to perform the functions vested in the president by Article II. I also hope that the Court holds that due process precludes the president from having the power to remove at will an officer whose sole responsibilities are to adjudicate disputes between private parties and the government. With one glaring exception, the Court’s opinions are consistent with those principles when they are read with care and in the context in which they were decided. I hope that the Court eliminates the one outlier by overruling its 1955 decision in Marcello v. Bonds and holding that immigration judges cannot be removed at will.
2. The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) has solicited several reports that describe in detail the functions performed by the roughly 2,000 ALJs and 11,000 AJs who preside in hearings conducted by federal agencies. Those studies are available on the ACUS website.
3. Brief for Respondent Supporting Petitioners at 39–56, Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (Feb. 2018) (No. 17-130).
19. See the descriptions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 and the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 in Wikipedia.
20. See Ewin L. Davis, Influence of the Federal Trade Commission’s Investigations on Federal Regulation of Interstate Electric and Gas Utilities, 14 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 21 (1945).
37. Catherine Y. Kim, The President’s Immigration Courts, 68 Emory L. Rev. 1, 3–6 (2018).
38. Kent Barnett, Logan Cornett, Malia Redick & Russell Wheeler, Non-ALJ Adjudicators in Federal Agencies: Status, Selection, Oversight and Removal, Final Report to Administrative Conference of the United States 52–61 (2018).
41. Richard J. Pierce Jr., Morrison v. Olson, Separation of Powers, and the Structure of Government, 1988 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1. See also Richard J. Pierce Jr., Saving the Unitary Executive Theory from Those Who Would Distort and Abuse It, 12 Penn. J. Const. L. 593 (2010) (explaining why political limits on the power to remove a special counsel are far more effective than legal limits).
***************************************
Seems to me that the bottom lime here is that ALL so-called “Administrative Courts” established within the Executive Branch are unconstitutional. They either 1) violate the Appointments Clause, if the President can’t remove the judge; or 2) violate the Due Process Clause, if the President can remove the judge.
So, either way, the Supremes have been complicit in a constitutional travesty.
Conclusion: all Administrative Courts within the Executive Branch, including the U.S. Immigration Court are unconstitutional. They must be abolished and reestablished as independent courts under either Article I or Article III of the Constitution. “Courts” are simply not an Executive function under Article I. And this Administration is giving us a vivid demonstration of why no legitimate court system can function under its authority.
Many thanks to my colleagues retired Judges Denise Slavin and Jeffrey Chase of the “Roundtable” for bringing this to my attention.
IN OUR OWN IMAGE
Beto O’Rourke’s Plan for Rebuilding Our Immigration and Naturalization System To Make It Work Better for Our Families, Our Communities, and Our Economy
Above all else, immigration is about people – not just those who have recently arrived or those yet to come, but the kind of people we choose to be. Since the Founding, the compact we made as a nation was to welcome the oppressed, the persecuted, and the hopeful from all over the world because we recognize that immigrants enrich every aspect of our society with their determination and genius. Each successive generation of Americans has included immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, strengthening this nation that we share.
The current administration has chosen to defy this American aspiration, drafted into our Declaration of Independence, welded into the welcome of our Statue of Liberty, and secured by the sacrifices of countless generations. Instead, the current administration is pursuing cruel and cynical policies that aim to sow needless chaos and confusion at our borders. It is manufacturing crises in our communities. And it is seeking to turn us against each other. When this is done in our name, with our tax dollars, and to our neighbors, we not only undermine our laws, hold back our economy, and damage our security – we risk losing ourselves.
But at this moment of peril, we have a chance not only to reverse course but to advance a new vision of immigration that more fully reflects our values. As a fourth-generation El Pasoan, Beto uniquely recognizes the urgency of fixing our broken immigration and naturalization system. Rooted in his experience serving the largest binational community in the Western Hemisphere – one that draws its strength and prosperity from its rich heritage of welcoming immigrants – Beto is proposing a new path forward to ensure we honor our laws, live up to our values, and once again harness the power of a new generation of immigration toward our shared prosperity.
Beto’s plan, which would represent the most sweeping rewrite of our nation’s immigration and naturalization laws in a generation, is built on three key pillars:
1. On day one of his presidency, Beto will use executive authority to stop the inhumane treatment of children, reunite families that have been separated, reform our asylum system, rescind the travel bans, and remove the fear of deportation for Dreamers and beneficiaries of programs like TPS.
2. Beto will also immediately engage with Congress to enact legislation – focused on the key role families and communities play – that will allow America to fully harness the power of economic growth and opportunity that both immigration and naturalization will bring to our country’s future.
3. Finally, Beto’s plan would strengthen our partnership with our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. We need to refocus on supporting democracy and human rights and invest in reducing violence because the only path to regional security runs through a more democratic and prosperous Latin America.
I. ENDING THE CRUEL AND CYNICAL POLICIES THAT CREATE CHAOS AT OUR BORDERS AND IN OUR COMMUNITIES ON DAY ONE
The current administration’s cruel and cynical policies are sowing needless chaos and confusion at our borders and in our communities. On day one of his presidency, Beto will take immediate executive action to end these practices and replace them with policies that conform to our laws and values, restore order and process to our asylum and immigration systems, and refocus our tax dollars on smart security. Those executive actions will:
● Reform the asylum system and reunite families. The current asylum system is ineffective, inefficient, illegal, and immoral. Those traveling vast distances to escape extreme violence and crushing poverty are being met by a militarized cruelty and manufactured chaos that separates families, detains children, and deliberately extends the backlog of those who require processing. We must change both the culture and processes for handling asylum claims.
An O’Rourke administration will ensure lawful and humane conditions at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities, including access to medical treatment, mental health care, social workers, and translators, and restore orderly and prompt processing of people seeking refuge under our nation’s asylum laws. As president, Beto will:
o Rescind the current administration’s executive orders that seek to maximize detention and deportation, including former Attorney General Sessions’ radical re- interpretation of asylum law that seeks to deny protection to women and children fleeing domestic violence and escaping from deadly gangs.
o Mandate an end to family separations at the border and illegal policies like “metering” and “Remain in Mexico.”
o Issue an executive order to require detention only for those with criminal backgrounds representing a danger to our communities and eliminate all funding for private, for-profit prison operators whose incentive is profit, not security.
o Ensure that people have the tools to navigate our immigration court system by scaling up community-based programs and family case management, which is nearly one-tenth the cost of detention and ensures that people attend their courts hearing and that they know what is expected of them.
o ReinstatetheCentralAmericanMinorsprogram–allowingchildrenwithparents in the U.S. to apply for refugee status from their home countries – and other regional refugee resettlement efforts, working with the international community to process cases in the region and commit to resettling in partner countries. o Take immediate steps to upgrade and increase staffing in the asylum system, streamline how cases move through the process, and provide timely and fair asylum decisions, while laying the foundation for a more fundamental reform to the immigration court system that restores due process and ensures equal access to justice, including by:
▪ Increasing court staff, clerks, interpreters, and judges; ▪ Making the courts independent under Article I, rather than administered by the U.S. Department of Justice; ▪ Ending policies that prevent judges from managing their dockets in the most effective way; ▪ Expanding the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) to ensure that everyone knows how to navigate our immigration system; ▪ Deploying up to 2,000 lawyers to the border and funding a robust right to counsel; and ▪ Developing approaches to resolve asylum cases outside of the court system, such as by allowing USCIS Asylum Officers to fully adjudicate cases when conducting Credible Fear Interviews to prevent referring more cases into the backlogged courts. o Personally lead a public-private initiative to bring humanitarian resources to the border. ● Rescind the discriminatory travel bans, which defy our nation’s Constitution and values.
● Immediately remove the fear of deportation for Dreamers and their parents and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) beneficiaries, and begin work towards a permanent legislative solution.
● Refocus on smart security. The current administration is distracting CBP and other law enforcement personnel from focusing on actual threats and undermining their efficacy by pulling resources away from them – all in pursuit of a wall that we do not need, does not work, and will not make us safer. As President, Beto will:
o Immediatelyhaltworkontheborderwall–andhisfirstbudget,andeverybudget, will include zero dollars for this unnecessary wall;
o Immediatelybooststaffingtoexpandinspections,reducewaittimes,andincrease our capacity to detect illicit drugs – for instance by pursuing a targeted two-prong strategy that focuses on fentanyl shipments coming through our ports and our mail system – and other contraband, as well as modernizing our ports; and
o Immediately prioritize cracking down on smugglers and traffickers who exploit children and families by working with our regional partners.
IN OUR OWN IMAGE
The following are first-hand testimonials from immigrants in El Paso and across America
Daisy, Dreamer
El Paso, TX
“I came to this country when I was under two years old and have been here for 21 years. I have two younger brothers – one is a United States citizen and one is DACA, like me. I’ve been here longer than I can remember, but because of my status I couldn’t qualify for federal loans to help pay for community college. So I worked two jobs – one full-time job and one part- time job at the same time as taking classes year-round to get my associate’s degree, and now I’m enrolled in the University of Texas, El Paso, where I’m studying computer science and want to go into cybersecurity. After I graduate, I’m thinking about maybe trying to support the US military in cybersecurity or networking – but I can’t work on a base if I don’t have legal immigration status.
“All my friends and memories are here in America. Everything I’ve worked for and contributed to is here and I want to continue building my life and career in the only place I’ve known to be home.”
David, Dreamer
El Paso, TX
“I arrived in the United States when I was 13 years old with my mother after we lost our home during Hurricane Wilma. Since I’ve come here, I’ve always pushed myself to be the best I can be. I’ve worked hard in school, pursued my passion in math and science, and now I’m studying computer science at UTEP while also working at a solar company. When I graduate, I want to use my degree to better this country and society.
Some of modern society’s most important inventions are the result of immigrants – such as Google and Tesla. This innovation only happened because people came to this country and were given a chance. America should embrace the investments, benefits and diversity that immigrants bring, because we can help this country reach its greatest potential.”
II. STRENGTHENING OUR FAMILIES, COMMUNITIES, AND ECONOMY BY REWRITING OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS IN OUR OWN IMAGE
As President, Beto will push to rewrite our nation’s immigration and naturalization laws in our own image. These laws have not been meaningfully modernized in decades, despite the efforts of multiple administrations. But we have the chance to chart a new course that more fully vindicates the promise of this nation of immigrants. Beto will work with Congress to achieve that vision. He will reunite families and ensure they have a chance to contribute more to our economy and our communities – and pursue the American Dream. He will put workers and employers on a level playing field to, together, tap into the opportunity immigration presents for our economic growth and shared prosperity. And he will do that while boosting the security and functionality of our borders.
This is not just right but also essential to our shared prosperity. Immigrants from every corner of the world – those who came here on student visas and those seeking refuge from persecution – have been a key driver of our economic growth. They have been responsible for nearly one-third of all new small business, one-fifth of all Fortune 500 companies. And achieving immigration reform will be critical to unlocking our future success – creating at least 3 million jobs over the next decade, adding $2 billion to state and local tax revenues each year, and cutting the deficit by at least $1 trillion over the next 20 years.
Naturalization, too, promises economic gains. A recent study of 21 U.S. cities found that if all eligible immigrant residents were to naturalize, incomes would increase by $5.7 billion,
homeownership would rise by over 45,000, and tax revenues would grow $2 billion. The same study showed GDP would grow by $37 to 52 billion per year if half of those eligible nationwide naturalized.
In his first hundred days, Beto will put the full weight of the presidency behind passing legislation that:
● Creates an earned pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented people that is more efficient than previous proposals and includes an immediate path for Dreamers and beneficiaries of programs like the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) programs.
● Strengthens our families, communities, and economy by prioritizing family unity – a hallmark of our best traditions – through provisions that:
o Reuniteimmigrantfamiliesseparatedbylengthyvisabacklogs;
o Revisepreferencecategoriesandcapstoprioritizefamilyunity;and o Removebarstore-entryandstatusadjustmenttosupportfamilies.
● Establishes a new, first-of-its-kind community-based visa category. Beto’s proposal will create a brand new category whereby communities and congregations can welcome refugees through community sponsorship of visas. This program will supplement the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which will be rebuilt and restored to align with America’s tradition of welcoming vulnerable refugees from around the world.
● Increase the visa caps so that we match our economic opportunities and needs – for work, education, investment, and innovation – to the number of people we allow into this country. This also means legislation that will:
o Ensure that industries that depend on immigrant labor have access to a program that allows workers to legally come here and legally return to their home country with appropriate labor and mobility protections;
o Address the green-card backlog and provide opportunities for those awaiting resolution to work and contribute, while immediately recapturing the over 300,000 green cards that have gone unused due to bureaucratic delays to support our high-growth industries of the future;
o Promote STEM education by granting foreign-born students more flexibility to stay in the U.S. and gain employment after graduating; and
o Allowforeign-bornentrepreneursandU.S.patentholdersthechancetostayinthe United States to grow their business, create jobs and raise families that will go on to enrich our country.
● Make naturalization easier for the nearly 9 million immigrants who are currently eligible for citizenship. If we are to reestablish our reputation as a nation that welcomes immigrants, we must make it easier for those already here to become full-fledged citizens. This means pursuing legislation that:
o Makesnaturalizationfreeforallwhomeetthelegalrequirementsforcitizenship;
o Eliminatesapplicationbacklogs;
o Reforms the application process so that individuals are mailed a pre-filled application form as soon as they meet the legal requirements for citizenship;
o Increaseslegalservicesfundingforthosewhoneedit;and
o Establishesequaltreatmentofallcitizens–naturalizedandnative-born–rejecting the current administration’s effort to create new barriers to naturalization and stoke fears around de-naturalization.
● Bolster security and functionality of the border where trade and travel occur. Beto will draw on his lived experience at the border to push for legislation that actually supports our law enforcement and our border communities in advancing the nation’s security and protection from all threats. This includes three steps:
o Increasing Personnel: Immediately stop the smuggling of drugs and prevent human trafficking across the border by hiring, training, and assigning additional CBP personnel at land border crossings;
o Strengthening Infrastructure: Investing in smart, long-term border security by improving existing ports of entry and constructing new ones, investing in evidence-based, cost-effective technology, and supporting federal grant programs that provide resources to both state and local law enforcement and our border communities; and
o AddressingFailures:Ensuringthatweremainanationoflawsbyaddressingvisa overstays through better tracking of and notification to visa holders and fully harmonizing our entry-exit systems with Mexico and Canada.
● Ensure transparency and accountability in law enforcement, including ICE and CBP. Beto will also continue to champion and build upon his previous proposals to:
o CreateanindependentBorderOversightCommission,anOmbudsman,andBorder Community Liaison office;
o Create a uniform process for tracking and preventing migrant deaths along the border; and
o Increase accountability from ICE and CBP personnel through improved training and continued education courses.
IN OUR OWN IMAGE
The following are first-hand testimonials from immigrants in El Paso and across America
Jose Ochoa, business owner
Santa Teresa, NM
“I was born and raised in Mexico and studied engineering. In 2003, I moved to Juarez and worked for multiple global companies in their engineering and packaging operations, but after three years, I knew I wanted to start my own company. One of my colleagues and I teamed up and we opened our own businesses – one in Juarez and one in El Paso – embracing the binational relationship and trade partnership between the United States and Mexico. Today, that company employs nine people in El Paso, and I recently started my third business in America: a consumer electronics corporation established in New Mexico with an e- commerce presence and a physical store in Texas.
“In 2017, our El Paso business, Global Containers & Custom Packaging, was named Exporter of the Year by the El Paso Small Business Administration. Small businesses are the top generators of our economy – we want to generate value, impact our communities and keep employing more people. And if I can help other entrepreneurs and immigrants to be successful here in America – that’s what makes me happy.”
Jose David Burgos, MD, doctor and business owner
El Paso, TX
“I was born in Venezuela as the son of Colombian immigrants. I studied medicine in Venezuela, but because of the political climate there, I came to the United States in 2005, enrolled in school and started preparing for my medical boards while doing research at the University of South Florida. I then had the chance to do my residency at Texas Tech, where I also worked as a professor of internal medicine and after that I started working at the University Medical Center in El Paso. Now, I serve as Medical Director at UMC and have opened two medical clinics in the area, including an urgent care facility. My family also recently opened a restaurant in El Paso.
“Both my wife and I are immigrants and we both had the opportunity to become American citizens. It was a lengthy and painful process, but I am grateful that we have been able to make a positive impact in our community and bring positive change to the area. I am living proof the American Dream is alive, and now I am able to support and encourage other hardworking physicians who are looking for the same chance.”
III. RESTORING OUR STANDING AND ENSURING REGIONAL SECURITY BY BEING A PARTNER FOR PROSPERITY AND SECURITY IN LATIN AMERICA
Consistent with this broad vision, Beto’s plan strengthens our partnership with our neighbors throughout the Western Hemisphere and will be implemented alongside partners in the Northern Triangle and across the region. His foreign policy will increase our engagement within the hemisphere, elevate the importance of Latin America, refocus on supporting democracy and human rights, end our failed war on drugs, and invest in reducing violence and combating climate change, because the only path to regional security runs through a more democratic and prosperous Latin America.
● Join with the people of the Northern Triangle to fight violence and poverty and bolster our shared security and prosperity. Beto will bring a whole of government approach to our investment in the Northern Triangle, recognizing that what we have done in the past is not enough. We must convene our regional partners to do more, faster, if we are serious about reversing the instability that drives forced migration. This means:
o ConveninganewandimprovedPartnershipforProsperityandSecuritybycalling upon our allies and friends across the Americas to form a regional alliance dedicated to creating stability and economic prosperity across the continent, beginning in the most precarious countries;
o Investing $5 billion in the region primarily through non-governmental organizations, community groups (such as Municipal Crime Prevention Committees) and congregations, and public-private partnerships, while galvanizing new financial support from Canada, Mexico, and other international partners, and transforming the development approach that these resources advance, by
▪ Supporting community-based violence prevention strategies and encouraging an end to militarized public security and the global war on drugs – which has become a war on people and fails to recognize the real threat of addiction;
▪ Promoting democratic infrastructure, labor rights, civil rights, and human rights;
▪ Supporting the growth of small-scale farming and access to markets;
▪ Providing agricultural technical support to increase adaptation to climate
change and improve the use of natural resources;
▪ Elevating job, training, and educational opportunities for youth;
▪ Strengthening strategies to address the specific needs of women and girls;
▪ Improving access to health care, clean air, and clean water; and
▪ Supporting adoption of crop insurance and catastrophic insurance, especially as a powerful tool in the face of a changing climate.
● Address systematic impunity, corruption, and weak institutions. Beto will also be firm with the economic and governing elites of the Northern Triangle, who must do their part. For too long these elites have benefited from the status quo. Real change will require their full engagement and, as President, Beto will demand it. That means if they want access to the United States – to do business, to vacation, to send their kids to college – they must commit to ending corruption and self-dealing. They must pay their taxes and invest in their broader communities. They must hold their elected officials accountable.
● Strengthen Mexico and Latin America’s capacity to contribute to regional security, by supporting the United Nations’ Refugee Agency’s (UNHCR) work and the development of strong asylum and refugee protection systems in Mexico and across the region, to manage migration flows from the Northern Triangle, specifically by:
o WorkingwithUNHCRtoexpandthecapacityofMexico’srefugeesystemandto collaborate with Mexico on asylum seekers who are both traveling to and through Mexico; and
o Launching a regional resettlement initiative, including building a safe and comprehensive repatriation and reintegration program.
IN OUR OWN IMAGE
The following are first-hand testimonials from immigrants in El Paso and across America
Evelyn, survivor of human trafficking
Silver Spring, MD
“I came to this country when I was 9 years old. I had no idea that I didn’t come here legally, and I was forced into modern-day slavery for the next seven years. With the help a local church and law enforcement, I was able to escape the system I was forced into, get a visa, and I eventually became a naturalized citizen. I got my GED, went to community college, saved money, and in 2016 received my Bachelor’s Degree. Becoming a naturalized citizen enabled me to do more work helping survivors of human trafficking find jobs and start new lives for themselves. It also enabled me to travel across the United States and abroad to educate people about human trafficking and how many people who come to this country and don’t have legal status are victims of violence or horrible situations often without anywhere to turn.”
Carlos G. Maldonado, J.D., immigration lawyer
El Paso, TX
“I came to the United States from Quito, Ecuador when I was 16 without knowing a word of English. I had always wanted to become either a doctor or a lawyer, but after navigating the difficult and complicated immigration system myself, I knew I wanted to go into law to help others have the chance to start and build their lives in America too.
“It took me almost 18 years to finally be able to become a United States citizen. For the first 13 years I was here – even though I had finished law school and was here legally – I never once left the country because I feared I wouldn’t be able to return or that it would slow down my immigration process. I finally became a U.S. citizen in 2018 – and that day was the best day of my life. It was honestly a dream come true. I was relieved, happy and thankful all at the same time. I am so honored today to be able to say that I am an American, and I’m honored that through my work every day I am able to help others navigate the immigration process and have a chance at the American Dream too.”
*************************************
Immigration cannot be successfully addressed or reformed without correcting the current unconstitutional and totally dysfunctional Immigration Court system and replacing it with an independent Article I Immigration Court that complies with our Constitution and guarantees constitutional due process as well as efficient, professional, de-politicized judicial and docket administration.
As our current failed Immigration Court system proves every day, all of our legal and constitutional rights are meaningless without a fair, independent, and impartial forum in which to vindicate them. Injustice to one is injustice to all!
Former Border Patrol Agent and author Francisco Cantu writes in the NY Times:
Seeking Refuge, Legally, and Finding Prison
Power is condemning lawful asylum seekers to a system designed for criminals.
By Francisco Cantú
Mr. Cantú is a former Border Patrol agent and an author.
For more than seven months, Ysabel has been incarcerated without bond at an immigrant detention center in southern Arizona, part of a vast network of for-profit internment facilities administered by private companies under contract with the Department of Homeland Security.
I visit Ysabel (who has asked not to be identified by her real name for her protection) every two weeks as a volunteer with the Kino Border Initiative, one of ahandful of migrant advocacy groups running desperately needed visitation programs in Arizona, including Mariposas Sin Fronteras and Transcend. As volunteers, our primary role is to provide moral support; facilitate communication with family members and legal service providers; and serve as a sounding board for frustration, confusion and, often, raw despair.
Ysabel and the other asylum seekers we visit often ask for simple forms of support, such as small deposits into their commissary accounts to let them call relatives or purchase overpriced goods like dry ramen, tampons, shampoo or headphones for watching telenovelas. They often ask us to send them books in Spanish — one of the few things that they are permitted to receive through the mail without clearance from a property officer. Large-print Bibles are the most popular, along with books of song and prayer, bilingual dictionaries and English course books, romance novels, and other books that provide ways to pass the time — word puzzle collections, coloring books, books for learning how to draw and instruction manuals for making origami figurines.
Ysabel arrived at the United States border last October after leaving her home and two children in eastern Venezuela. The region she fled was plagued by disorder long before the more widely reported upheavals of recent months, suffering frequent power outages, widespread violence and unrest, and severe shortages of food, water and medication. In the years leading up to her flight from the country, Ysabel told me that she had been kidnapped, robbed at gunpoint multiple times and shot at during an attempted carjacking.
***********************************
Beneath all of the Trump Administration’s diversionary tactics and overt White Nationalist racism is an even more disturbing truth: our country is systematically denying due process, fundamental fairness, and humane treatment to those who, unlike Trump and his scofflaws, are actually following our laws and deserve a “fair shot” at receiving life-saving protection.
Folks like Yasabel pose no “threat” to the United States other than the color of their skin. But, Trump, Stephen Miller, Bill Barr, and the rest of the Trump sycophants, their supporters, and their GOP enablers, pose an existential threat to our continued existence as a nation.
Outrageously, the U.S. Immigration Courts, supposedly a courageous bastion of protection for the legal and constitutional rights of asylum applicants and others against Government overreach, have become “weaponized” under Barr and Sessions. Now, they function as tools of repression, not justice.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, in the United States will escape the eventual consequences of the systemic abuses of our legal system and human dignity being carried out under our noses by the Trump Administration through the seriously corrupted Immigration “Court” System.
Yes, 1939 can happen in America, and it’s coming closer all the time! Trump’s disgusting rhetoric is the same as fascists before him: hate, shame, blame, vilification and dehumanization of the innocent and most vulnerable.
Wake up, before it’s too late! Join the New Due Process Army and fight against this Administration’s vile White Nationalist Plan to destroy our country!
James Hohmann reports for the Washington Post’s “Daily 202:”
— Hundreds of minors are being held at U.S. facilities at the southern border beyond legal time limits. Abigail Hauslohner and Maria Sacchetti report: “Federal law and court orders require that children in Border Patrol custody be transferred to more-hospitable shelters no longer than 72 hours after they are apprehended. But some unaccompanied children are spending longer than a week in Border Patrol stations and processing centers, according to two Customs and Border Protection officials and two other government officials. … One government official said about half of the children in custody — 1,000 — have been with the Border Patrol for longer than 72 hours, and another official said that more than 250 children 12 or younger have been in custody for an average of six days. …
“The McAllen Border Patrol station, a facility near the southern tip of Texas that is routinely overwhelmed, was holding 775 people on Tuesday, nearly double its capacity. The Washington Post this week made a rare visit inside the facility, where adults and their toddler children were packed into concrete holding cells, many of them sleeping head-to-foot on the floor and along the wall-length benches, as they awaited processing at a sparsely staffed circle of computers known as ‘the bubble.’ … Experts say transferring children out of detention facilities as quickly as possible is critical, especially for ‘tender age’ children — those 12 or younger, who face physical and mental health issues even during short periods in detention. They sleep fitfully, do not eat well and suffer anxiety, said Amy Cohen, a child psychiatrist and expert witness in the Flores case.”
— Border agents apprehended 1,036 migrants in a record roundup near El Paso earlier this week. The apprehensions, which included 63 children traveling alone, reflect an uptick in the number of large groups trying to cross the border. Border agents apprehended a group of 424 migrants, the previous record, just last month. (NBC News)
Here’s the statement of ABA President Bob Carlson:
May 31, 2019
Statement of ABA President Bob Carlson, Re: Improper Detention of Immigrant Children
Share this:
WASHINGTON, May 31, 2019 — The American Bar Association is deeply disturbed by reports that hundreds of unaccompanied children seeking refuge in the United States are being held by the U.S. Border Patrol in violation of the law and federal policies.According to federal law and court orders, immigrant children generally cannot be held by law enforcement for more than 72 hours before being transferred to shelters that are better equipped to care for their physical and psychological needs. Yet news reports cite recent federal data that hundreds of children, many aged 12 and younger, have been held in Border Patrol custody for an average of six days, in facilities that are intended to be short-term processing stations.The current situation is unacceptable. Leaders at every level of the federal government, including the White House and Congress, must immediately find legal and humane alternatives that relieve the suffering of these children – and then work to create and fund comprehensive, long-term solutions.
With more than 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is one of the largest voluntary professional membership organizations in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law. View our privacy statement online. Follow the latest ABA news at www.americanbar.org/newsand on Twitter @ABANews.
****************************************
How “gonzo” has our country become? Our dishonest and unqualified “President” makes idiotic threats against our “friends” because his Administration has been too maliciously incompetent to deal with a relatively predictable flow of individuals merely seeking to exercise their legal rights. Somehow, the mess in Central America, for which we share a great part of the blame, becomes Mexico’s problem to solve. But, while the vast majority of those arriving at our borders are surrendering themselves to apply under our laws, the Trump Administration is violating the law on a grand scale by mistreating children and others in detention.
In a rational country, there would be a massive, bipartisan, expedited movement to remove this unqualified demagogue from office before he does more damage to our country and our world. But not in today’s America.
Sadly, that appears to be the real meaning of “American exceptionalism.”
On Friday, the New York Times reported that former Virginia attorney general Kenneth Cuccinelli will be tapped for a role in the Trump administration. He will be put in charge of the country’s legal immigration system, as head of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). While it had been earlier rumored that Cuccinelli would be placed in a new job as “immigration czar,” both the Times and the Washington Post noted that he now seems set for the top spot at USCIS.
No matter what job Cuccinelli ends up in, he is neither deserving nor qualified to play any role in shaping immigration policy. He is an immigration hardliner with views that are at odds with American values. He has a history of xenophobic, homophobic, and sexist comments. Ironically, one nice thing that can be said about Cuccinelli is that he fosters bipartisanship — he has generated opposition from both sides of the aisle.
Given that Cuccinelli could soon be presiding over USCIS, his comments on immigration are worthy of review. In 2018, he told Breitbart News Daily that states should use “war powers” to turn back migrants: “You just point them back across the river and let them swim for it,” he said. In 2015, appearing on a conservative radio station, he claimed that President Obama was encouraging an “invasion” of undocumented immigrants. In 2012, he compared immigration policy to pest control. He’s called the infamous Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) “one of my very favorite congressman.” So Cuccinelli is hardly someone who can be trusted to run USCIS in keeping with the agency’s core values, which include “respect” and “integrity.”
Most importantly, Cuccinelli has no significant experience in immigration policy, notwithstanding his failed attempt to end birthright citizenship as a state senator. He is not from a border state, nor has he been a credible voice in the immigration debate. His background is in law enforcement, not immigration law.
Cuccinelli’s prime qualification for his new job seems to be that he has been a tireless defender of the president on cable news. That could almost be seen as laughable if the stakes were not so high. Consider that as head of USCIS, Cuccinelli would wield tremendous power over immigrants like refugees, domestic abuse victims, and asylum-seekers. Or that our legal immigration system is byzantine and complicated, attracting the largest number of immigrants in the world. In FY 2017, the U.S. granted Legal Permanent Resident status to about 1.1 million people, including 120,000 refugees and 25,000 asylum-seekers.
Cuccinelli’s anti-LGBTQ record is especially troubling. As attorney general, he was against policies banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public colleges and universities. As a state senator, he unsuccessfully fought to criminalize sodomy, calling “homosexual acts… intrinsically wrong.” In 2008, he declared that homosexuality “brings nothing but self-destruction, not only physically but of their soul.” The extreme views matter because LGBTQ people are among our most vulnerable immigrants. The Human Rights Campaign, for example, has documented “the precarious position of transgender immigrants and asylum seekers.” Sadly, it seems unlikely that Cuccinelli would respect their human rights, let alone treat LGBTQ immigrants with kindness and compassion.
There are myriad ways in which Cuccinelli has demonstrated that he is far out of the mainstream, so much so that handing him a huge job would be dangerous. The man who worried about getting his newborn son a social security number because he was concerned about the government tracking his family is probably not the ideal person to put in charge of E-Verify, the federal database that checks employment eligibility.
True, the president can choose whomever he likes for high-level positions. But Cuccinelli isn’t even a smart political pick. In addition to being unpopular with Democrats, he doesn’t have the full support of Republican lawmakers either. According to the website Vox, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) does not want to confirm Cuccinelli (the ill will stems from the fact that Cuccinelli headed up a political action committee that supported primary challenges to incumbent Republicans in 2014). Besides, on immigration most Americans are moving away from Trump. This January, the Pew Center found that 62 percent of Americans believe that immigrants strengthen our country. A restrictionist like Cuccinelli is not what the public wants or needs.
As head of USCIS, Cuccinelli would bring little to the job except a track record as a Trump loyalist. With his outdated and narrow views, he would be a disaster overseeing our legal immigration system.
Raul A. Reyes is an immigration attorney and member of the USA Today Board of Contributors. A graduate of Harvard University and Columbia Law School, he is also a contributor to NBCNews.com and CNN Opinion. You can follow him on Twitter at @RaulAReyes, Instagram: raulareyes1.
***************************************
Let’s remember that fired hardliner L. Francis Cissna was the man who “took the ‘Services’ out of US Citizenship and Immigration Services.” His dismal anti-immigrant polices and undermining of public service have brought unprecedented backlogs to USCIS adjudications that are now under Congressional investigation. He also reportedly “tanked” employee morale at USCIS. Nevertheless, he wasn’t quite nasty enough for Trump and his neo-Nazi White Nationalist advisor Stephen MIller.
As a Virginia resident who suffered through “Cooch Cooch’s” disastrous tenure as Attorney General and his thankfully unsuccessful bid to become our Governor, I can testify that he is indeed without any redeeming social values. In other words, a perfect fit for the “Trump Immigration Kakistocracy.” But, “Cooch Cooch” has some powerful enemies in the GOP Senate. He pissed off Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and powerful Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) can’t be too pleased with Trump’s treatment of his former staffer Cissna.
In the meantime, it’s “chaos as usual” in the DHS/USCIS kakistocracy.
Annie Karni and Ana Swanson report for the NY Times:
WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that he planned to impose a 5 percent tariff on all imported goods from Mexico beginning June 10, a tax that he said would “gradually increase” until Mexico stopped the flow of undocumented immigrants across the border.
The announcement, which Mr. Trump hinted at on Thursday morning and announced on his Twitter feed, said the tariffs would be in place “until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP.”
In a presidential statement that followed, he said that tariffs would be raised to 10 percent on July 1 “if the crisis persists,” and then by an additional 5 percent each month for three months.
*************************************
Wow! Just think of how far we have fallen as a nation. Let’s imagine that Obama, Bush, or Clinton proposed such idiotic, incoherent, nonsense, blatantly exhibiting something between total derangement and gross incompetence.
Journalists would be stunned, economists horrified. Politicians of both parties would be “talking 25th Amendment!”
Yet with Trump, it’s merely “ho hum, another day in nut-land” with only our country’s and the world’s future at stake. After all, he’s always threatening to take utterly insane, totally illegal actions. And, he only follows through about half the time.
Can we really survive this type of Clown Kakistocracy? Why won’t Mexico, China, Canada, India, and the EU just get together, negotiate some sound trade agreements based on real economics and sane diplomacy, and let the U.S. wander off into never-never land?
Yeah, I know, the economy continues to blaze away, markets are high, and unemployment low. But, remember the little warning line at the bottom of the prospectus of your most successful financial investment: Past results are not a prediction of future returns.
Well, there is some good news. At least there won’t be any suspense on who gets the “Courtside Five Clown Award” for this week. Who else but the Chief Clown! He’s earned it, and you can’t say that about much else in his tawdry life.
One of the earliest stories I heard as a child was that my immigrant great-great-grandfather worked out West on the first transcontinental railroad. Yuan Son, along with tens of thousands of other Chinese workers, blasted tunnels, carved footholds and laid grade at death-defying heights through the most arduous parts of the Sierra Nevada, miraculously making it out alive. I envisioned him tough and swashbuckling — a cross between my tall, bartender grandfather, who often told me these stories while smoking a Marlboro in our home in Queens, and Yosemite Sam.
My great-great-grandfather and his fellow laborers toiled around the clock in rotating shifts, handling explosive nitroglycerine, blasting through miles of granite, hauling tons of rock and dirt, even in upwards of 30 feet of snow. They endured brutal working conditions we would consider unconscionable today to complete the most difficult sections through the Sierra Nevada — the same terrain that stopped the ill-fated Donner Party in its tracks — and finally out to Nevada and Utah’s blistering desert heat. They were paid less and worked longer hours than their Irish or American counterparts, and they had to provide their own food and accommodations. Although some claimed it could never be done, Yuan Son and other Chinese workers completed the task in record time.
It wasn’t until, as an adult, I traveled to Promontory Summit, Utah, and saw the site of the railroad’s completion with my own eyes that I realized the true weight of this legacy. The railroad is a complicated affair for Chinese American descendants like me: The greatest U.S. engineering feat of the 19th century may have physically unified the country when it was finished in 1869, but this new network of rail also brought scores of white workers to the West, many of whom grew resentful when they saw Chinese holding down jobs they considered rightfully theirs. Not 15 years after the completion of the railroad, this ire, coupled with a severe economic depression, helped usher in the Chinese Exclusion Act — the country’s first major federal law that limited immigration based on race, class and nationality — setting the tone for future wide-reaching restrictive immigration policies.
My great-great grandfather was a teenager when he arrived in California, a mere boy, one of upwards of 20,000 Chinese, mainly from the Pearl River Delta area (in Guangdong province), who made up the majority of the Central Pacific Railroad workforce. He, like most of the others, was raised in a poor farming family, in a country that had been hammered by drought, famine, Western colonialism, warlordism and one of the bloodiest civil wars of the 19th century — conditions that would look familiar to many refugees and migrants today. So when the opportunity arose to feed his family by working for a railroad an ocean away, he took it.
As a schoolgirl, I scanned the official photograph that came to symbolize the railroad’s completion — engineers shaking hands, flocks of laborers posing for the camera, the champagne toast, a carefully choreographed scene — more than 100 years later, searching for faces like my great-great-grandfather’s. Only white faces stared back. Chinese workers were written out of this triumphant American story.
Their contributions were already being erased when Chinese Exclusion was enacted, and soon followed by a tsunami of anti-Chinese violence that swept across much of the West — lynchings, expulsions, boycotts of Chinese businesses, politicians jumping on the bandwagon. Nativism was as popular and potent then as it is today. Yuan Son, now an entrepreneurial shop owner, had happily settled in Idaho, where, after the railroad’s completion, Chinese made up close to 30 percent of the population. Although he had been living in the country for almost 30 years, one day he was forced out of his home at gunpoint by a band of masked vigilantes.
Despite these hardships, Yuan Son resettled back into life in China and surprisingly spoke of the work he had done on the railroad with great pride. He even taught my grandfather his first words in English: “Central Pacific,” “Southern Pacific” and “Union Pacific.” My chain-smoking grandfather repeated these names back to me through his ringing Cantonese intonations, in our home half a world away, as if he were a conductor calling out stations.
As the Trump administration attempts to rally support for ever more stringent immigration policies, I can’t help reflecting on railroad pioneers like Yuan Son. These men risked their lives hammering and detonating gunpowder, surviving avalanches and extreme conditions — engaging in the kind of backbreaking, chisel-to-granite “bone-work” that others refused to do. I am confronted by this complicated history, even as some wave patriotic flags amid cries to “make America great again.” One hundred and fifty years ago, my grandfather’s grandfather did help make this nation great, along with scores of his countrymen. It didn’t stop him from getting booted out, decades later, simply for being Chinese.
**************************************
Like it or not, supporting Trump means “buying in” to his noxiously false “Whitebread” vision of America’s past and future. It is also to disingenuously decline to recognize our true immigrant heritage and the overwhelming contributions of immigrants of color, enslaved Americans, immigrant women, and native Americans in making America great.
Sadly, the Chinese weren’t the only ones “airbrushed out” of the triumphant picture of the Transcontinental Railroad’s completion. Blacks, women, and Native Americans also made major contributions while suffering disproportionately; yet, they also received little or no appreciation or recognition.
Here’s a “differently take” on the ‘golden spike ceremony.:”
ICIJ: ICE’s own directives say that isolating detainees — who under federal law aren’t considered prisoners and aren’t held for punitive reasons — is “a serious step that requires careful consideration of alternatives.” An investigation by The Intercept and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists has found that ICE uses isolation as a go-to tool, rather than a last resort, to manage and punish even the most vulnerable detainees for weeks and months at a time.
AILA: The White House issued a memo directing relevant agencies to update/issue procedures, guidance, and regulations, as needed, to strictly enforce existing income-deeming and reimbursement laws when sponsored immigrants seek certain means-tested public benefits, such as SNAP, Medicaid, and TANF. See also One in Seven Adults in Immigrant Families Reported Avoiding Public Benefit Programs in 2018.
TRAC: The hiring pace for new judges continues to be insufficient to keep up with the Immigration Court’s workload. As a result, the court’s backlog continues to climb. While 47 new judges were hired during the first six months of FY 2019, others retired or left the bench. Thus, hiring resulted in a net gain of only 29 additional judges. As of the end of March, EOIR reports judge ranks had only climbed to a total of 424. And this total includes an unspecified number serving in administrative roles. See also Presiding Under Pressure and Judge Denise Slavin on the Immigration Courts, the National Association of Immigration Judges, Article I, and the Leadership at EOIR.
WaPo: President Trump plans to install Ken Cuccinelli II as the new director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, placing the conservative activist and former Virginia attorney general at the head of the agency that runs the country’s legal immigration system, administration officials said Friday. L. Francis Cissna, the agency’s current director, has told his staff that he will leave his post June 1. The move extends the purge of senior leadership at the Department of Homeland Security, replacing Cissna, a Senate-confirmed agency head with deep expertise on immigration law, with Cuccinelli, a conservative firebrand disliked by senior GOP figures, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
WNYC: An undocumented immigrant from Brooklyn was deported to his home country in the Caribbean on Wednesday without advance notice, despite serious cardiovascular issues that led him to fall ill on the flight and could soon lead to death without adequate care, according to his attorneys and a cardiologist who reviewed his case.
AP: A 16-year-old Guatemala migrant who died Monday in U.S. custody had been held by immigration authorities for six days — twice as long as federal law generally permits — then transferred him to another holding facility even after he was diagnosed with the flu.
Buzzfeed: “I don’t know how we’re going to be able to afford to stay in Juárez for that long,” a father of three said. “It’s dangerous here for migrants.”
AP: President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has insisted that his main strategy to deal with migration is to improve conditions in migrants’ countries of origin so they don’t feel compelled to leave. However, detentions and deportations in Mexico are up 150% so far this year. Mexico’s efforts did not appear to immediately appease President Donald Trump, who unleashed a broadside on Twitter on Tuesday. Trump wrote that he was “very disappointed that Mexico is doing virtually nothing to stop illegal immigrants from coming to our Southern Border” and added that “Mexico is wrong and I will soon be giving a response!”
Buzzfeed: As of Monday, ICE was holding 52,398 migrants, of which 998 are family units, an agency official told BuzzFeed News. The number represents a significant population spike from just two weeks ago when ICE was holding more than 49,000 migrants.
CNN: Allen and McPherson say they documented their concerns numerous times in reports filed with the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration, and felt like the people in power were listening. But they say two things prompted them to speak more publicly about the matter after Trump took office: the spike in family separations at the border and moves to increase family detention rather than scale it back.
Econ Times: The Trump administration has begun the process to ban work permits for spouses of H-1B visa holders, a move that would affect the families of thousands of Indian hi-tech workers in the US.
NorthJersey: New rules will require that court personnel ask federal immigration agents to present a warrant before they arrest anyone in courthouses on civil immigration offenses.
NYT: James Derek Mize, left, and his husband, Jonathan Gregg, are both American citizens. Under a State Department policy, their daughter, who was born abroad, did not qualify for citizenship.
Buzzfeed: The claim, which is typically a precursor to a lawsuit, is for personal injury and wrongful death and accuses the federal government of battery, negligence, and reckless conduct in the Border Patrol shooting of Claudia Patricia Gómez González, an indigenous Mayan woman.
AIC: The deaths show that before giving huge new sums to increase detention capability, the agency must face significant oversight and accountability towards the deplorable conditions it holds migrants in.
Pursuant to section 240(b)(5)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B) (2012), neither rescission of an in absentia order of removal nor termination of the proceedings is required where an alien who was served with a notice to appear that did not specify the time and place of the initial removal hearing failed to provide an address where a notice of hearing could be sent. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), distinguished.
Neither rescission of an in absentia order of removal nor termination of the proceedings is required where an alien did not appear at a scheduled hearing after being served with a notice to appear that did not specify the time and place of the initial removal hearing, so long as a subsequent notice of hearing specifying that information was properly sent to the alien. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), distinguished.
USCIS announced that individuals can file certain Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, online in certain circumstances. AILA Doc. No. 19052241
DHS final rule adjusting fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The rule is effective 6/24/19. (84 FR 23930, 5/23/19) AILA Doc. No. 19052300
USCIS correction to the notice published at 84 FR 20647 on 5/10/19 on continuation of documentation for beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status from Nepal and Honduras. The notice corrects the CIS Number, the DHS Docket Number, and the RIN. (84 FR 23578, 5/22/19) AILA Doc. No. 19052231
USCIS: As a first step, certain visitors for business, visitors for pleasure, and vocational students can now apply online to extend their stay in the United States. Additional classifications are coming soon.
556
Matter of Michael Vernon THOMAS, Respondent
Matter of Joseph Lloyd THOMPSON, Respondent
Decided by Attorney General May 28, 2019
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General
BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I direct the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) to refer these cases to me for review of its decisions. The
Board’s decisions in these matters are automatically stayed pending my
review. See Matter of Haddam, A.G. Order No. 2380-2001 (Jan. 19, 2001).
To assist me, I invite the parties to these proceedings and interested amici to
submit briefs that address whether, and under what circumstances, judicial
alteration of a criminal conviction or sentence—whether labeled “vacatur,”
“modification,” “clarification,” or some other term—should be taken into
consideration in determining the immigration consequences of the
conviction.
The parties’ briefs shall not exceed 15,000 words and shall be filed on or before June 28, 2019. Interested amici may submit briefs not exceeding
9,000 words on or before July 12, 2019. The parties may submit reply briefs
not exceeding 6,000 words on or before July 12, 2019. All filings shall be
accompanied by proof of service and shall be submitted electronically to AGCertification@usdoj.gov, and in triplicate to:
United States Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General, Room 5114 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
All briefs must be both submitted electronically and postmarked on or
before the pertinent deadlines. Requests for extensions are disfavored.
********************************
Like Barr’s entire tenure and continued interference with Due Process and judicial independence in the Immigration Courts, it’s highly unethical.
Nobody outside the White Nationalist restrictionist enclave would have any interest in revisiting the BIA’s reasonable rulings, going back more than a decade and one-half, recognizing sentence modifications entered by judges in criminal cases, mostly in state courts. Matter of Song, 23 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2001) and Matter of Cota Vargas, 23 I&N Dec. 843 (BIA 2005).
Indeed, this action does not appear to have have been generated by any actual party participating in Immigration Court litigation or by any pending Circuit Court litigation. It has nothing to do with the current “border crisis” that has paralyzed this Administration’s immigration bureaucracy.
Rather, it appears to be part of a concerted politically-based attack on migrants and the independence of the Immigration Court system orchestrated by restrictionist groups outside of government who use unscrupulous and willing senior officials like Barr, and Sessions before him, as operatives.
After ignoring all of the compelling arguments favoring the current precedents, Barr will basically “adopt” or “adapt” Judge Roger Pauley’s dissenting opinion in Matter of Cota. The decision likely has already been drafted along the lines of the restrictionist groups’ agenda for stripping migrants of the few rights they still retain in what was already a bogus “court” system where the law had intentionally been skewed against them and in favor of DHS for political reasons.
The only question is whether the Article III Courts will continue to put up with Barr’s “charade of justice at Justice.” We’ll see. But, at some point, the damage to our system being inflicted by dishonest and unethical officials like Barr might become irreparable.
Doris M. Meissner, Senior Fellow, Migration Policy Institute
Me
Kristie De Pena, Director of Immigration, Niskanen Center
Michael Clemons, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development
Noah Lanard, Reporter, Mother Jones
Noah Lanard reports in Mother Jones:
In April 2018, the Department of Homeland Security began using a new word to describe the situation at the southern border: crisis. The number of parents and children crossing the border to seek protection under US asylum laws was climbing to nearly 10,000 per month, up from barely a thousand at the start of the Trump administration. Trump did everything in his power to stop families from coming. He deployed the military to the border, separated parents from children, turned away asylum seekers at official border crossings, and then tried to make it illegal to request asylum unless people went to those crossings.
Nothing worked. More than 58,000 parents and children traveling togethercrossed the border last month, the seventh record-high in eight months. DHS officials have upped their hyperbolic rhetoric, saying that the immigration system is “on fire” and in “meltdown.”
At first, Democrats dismissed Trump’s fearmongering on immigration by pointing out that the total number of border crossers was still near historic lows. But as the number of parents and children coming to the border continues to skyrocket and the backlog of asylum seekers awaiting court hearings swells, it’s becoming clear to people across the political spectrum that doing nothing is not an option. Solutions are needed—the question is, what do they look like?
Mother Jones interviewed a half-dozen immigration experts from the left and center to see how they would create a fairer, more efficient, more humanitarian system for asylum seekers. Here’s what they recommend.
1. Hire more immigration judges
A backlog of nearly 900,000 asylum cases means that families seeking asylum often spend years living in the United States before their cases are decided by immigration judges. Most asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have not won their cases in recent years, and it’s even harder now that the Trump administration has limited protections for victims of gang and domestic violence, the most common forms of persecution in these “Northern Triangle” countries. Many of those who receive deportation orders, either because they lost their case or they did not apply for asylum after being released at the border, remain in the country as undocumented immigrants.
The backlog, combined with ICE’s limited ability to find people who don’t comply with removal orders, creates the accurate perception among migrants that families who turn themselves in to border agents are highly unlikely to be quickly deported. That presents an incentive for families unlikely to win asylum to cross the border anyway. More than 260,000 parents and children crossed the southern border between the 2016 and 2018 fiscal years. ICE deported about 7,000 family members during that period.
Trump has increased the number of immigration judges from 289 in 2016 to 435. But the backlog has been increasing by more than 100,000 cases per year,faster than under Barack Obama. That’s partly because of the surge in asylum claims but also because indiscriminate immigration enforcement has led to a dramatic increase in arrests of immigrants without criminal histories and forced judges to reopen cases they had set aside. The president is asking to fund 100 new judges in his 2020 budget, while Democrats have called for hiring at least 300 judges over four years.
Those numbers of hires would barely put a dent in the backlog in the short term. That’s why some experts think the administration should bring entire new classes of judges into the fold. Paul Schmidt, who served as an immigration judge from 2003 to 2016, suggests training retired state judges to handle bond and scheduling hearings so that judges have more time to handle asylum decisions. Kristie De Peña, director of immigration at the center-right Niskanen Center, proposes appointing emergency judges to decide asylum cases, and says that to assuage concerns about the Trump administration’s hiring, these judges could be selected by groups such as the American Bar Association and signed off on by governors.
2. Process asylum claims more efficiently
While serving as Bill Clinton’s top immigration official in the 1990s, Doris Meissner eliminated a similar asylum backlog with a series of technical fixes. Previously, asylum seekers were eligible for work permits immediately, even if their cases wouldn’t be resolved for years, giving people with weak asylum cases an incentive to come to the United States and start working. To remove that incentive, Meissner imposed a six-month waiting period before asylum seekers were eligible for work permits and made sure that nearly all cases were decided within six months. The number of new asylum applications fell by more than half within a year, and the share of claims that were approved eventually more than doubled.
Meissner, now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, proposes another change that could have a huge impact on the backlog: letting asylum officers, not immigration judges, make the initial decisions in asylum cases.
Those officers already decide many asylum cases—for people who weren’t stopped at the border—and conduct all the “credible fear” interviews that determine whether asylum seekers have a strong enough case to go before an immigration judge. If officers took the place of immigration judges in asylum cases, migrants arriving at the border with strong claims would have their asylum approved more quickly, allowing them to bring their families to the United States rather than waiting years for a hearing before being allowed to bring relatives. Those with weaker claims, sensing that they’d be denied quickly and deported, might skip the trip and avoid taking on massive debts in a futile attempt to win asylum.
Another solution that could spare asylum seekers a long and uncertain trip to the United States and cut down on the backlog would be letting Central Americans apply for refugee status from their home countries. The Obama administration started a program along these lines, but the Trump administration quickly ended it. Democrats are calling for bringing back an expanded version so people have an alternative to traveling to the border.
Schmidt also thinks attorneys should be provided to asylum seekers so they’re informed of their legal rights and cases run more smoothly. The problem for the Trump administration, he says, is that fairer hearings would likely lead to more people winning their cases. Instead of running an effective asylum system, the Trump administration practices what Schmidt calls “malicious incompetence,” a noxious mix of bureaucratic dysfunction and intentional undermining of legal protections for asylum seekers. “If you had a competent administration willing to put the money in the right places,” he says, “you could solve this problem, and it wouldn’t cost as much as all the stuff they’re doing now.”
3. Consider alternatives to family detention
There’s no issue where the government and immigrant advocates differ more sharply than immigrant detention. The vast majority of families are quickly released at the border because of detention capacity constraints and the Trump administration’s recognition that short-term detention doesn’t do much to deter immigration. Under both Obama and Trump, DHS has sought to detain families for longer than the current legal limit of about 20 days and quickly deport them if they lose their cases.
Indefinite family detention is a nonstarter for immigrant advocates, who point to the government’s abysmal track record on immigration detention, the traumatic impact detention can have on children, and the challenges of fighting cases from behind bars. Immigrant advocates and Democrats in Congress oppose all family detention, preferring to release immigrants and track them with ankle monitors and check-ins with case workers.
De Peña is trying to find a middle ground. She proposes a solution that would avoid prolonged detention and the quick releasing of families at the border,while taking advantage of a move Trump already made. Trump has cut refugee admissions to record lows, forcing resettlement agencies to close offices and lay people off. De Peña wants to bring some work back to these agencies by having the government contract with them to house families seeking asylum. Under her plan, the families would be located in proximity to one another and have access to schools, medical facilities, and lawyers. They could move about freely, though they’d be monitored with ankle bracelets, as they often are now. That way, families seeking asylum wouldn’t be locked up like criminals, but they would also be less likely to disappear into undocumented life in American cities.
4. Send foreign aid—but don’t rely on it
Almost everyone in both parties supports sending foreign aid to Central America.Senate Democrats’ border plan, which was first introduced in October, provides $3 billion in aid to address the “root causes” of migration from the Northern Triangle, specifically poverty and violence. The outlier is Trump, who is moving to cut off aid to Central America despite his own acting DHS secretary’s support for that assistance.
But that foreign aid is not likely to be a quick fix. Michael Clemens, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, and researcher Hannah Postel concluded in a 2018 article that the chance of deterring migration through development assistance is “weak at best.” To greatly impact migration, theyfound, aid would have to work in “unprecedented ways” over multiple generations. There is some evidence that security assistance for neighborhood-level programs such as community policing can reduce migration, but economic aid could actually have the opposite effect, boosting migration from the poorest areas of the Northern Triangle by giving people the resources needed to reach the border. Clemens considers Trump’s decision to cut off aid “vacuous and nihilistic,” but he believes foreign aid mostly gets as much attention as it does because it’s a “political winner”—not an actual short- or medium-term solution to the migration challenge.
5. Open up economic visas
People are leaving the Northern Triangle to escape intense gang violence, find jobs, or reunite with relatives—often all three. The problem is that economic and family concerns aren’t valid grounds for asylum, but asylum is essentially the only way for most Central Americans to come to the United States legally. (The State Department rejects nearly all tourist visa applications from low-income Central Americans, worried that they’ll overstay their visas.) But asylum doesn’t have to be the only path into the United States.
Last year, the Department of Labor approved nearly 400,000 guest workers recruited by US employers to work in agriculture and other seasonal industries. The vast majority of the temporary work visas have gone to Mexicans, many of whom have longstanding relationships with specific employers. The United States could easily require or encourage employers to hire more Central Americans. Clemens calls this the “lowest-hanging fruit” for accommodating people whose countries are passing through the same phase of economic development that caused migrants to come to the United States from everywhere from Sweden to South Korea in previous generations.
Opening up more visas for Central Americans wouldn’t require legislation and could be done “literally next month,” Clemens says. And given that Trump and his family already employ many of these guest workers, he says, “they know all about it.”
*************************************
These problems can be solved. But, not by “malicious incompetence.”
The biggest and most critical statutory change has nothing at all to do with “closing” bogus “loopholes” in asylum law that have been invented to further the White Nationalist narrative.
If I could make just one statutory change, it would be an independent Article I Immigration Court. Over time, a “real” court would establish a fair and efficient administration of the existing asylum laws and would hold the Government accountable for violating and ignoring those laws.
A border control system focused on administering asylum laws, rather than avoiding, flouting, or intentionally misinterpreting them, would look much different and undoubtedly would produce different results. That, in turn, would force the Government to establish and carry out real border law enforcement, rather than just targeting asylum seekers. Without a credible independent Immigration Court system to insure the integrity of the law, no statutory change in immigration law will be fully effective.
fl-undocumented-minors 2 – Judge Denise Slavin, executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges in an immigration courtrrom in Miami. Mike Stocker, Sun Sentinel
Immigration Judge Denise Slavin recently retired after 24 years on the bench. The Asylumist caught up with her to ask about her career, her role as a leader in the National Association of Immigration Judges, and the state of affairs at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”).
Asylumist: Tell me about how you got to be an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). What did you like and dislike about the job?
Judge Slavin: Before I became a Judge, I had some very different turns in my career. Early on, I worked for the Maryland Commission for Human Relations, where I prosecuted state civil rights complaints. I admired the hearing examiners, and I felt that I wanted to do that type of work. I knew [Immigration Judge] Larry Burman when I was in college, and he suggested I apply to the INS to become a trial attorney. I worked as a trial attorney from 1987 to 1990.
I then worked for the Department of Justice, Office of Special Investigations. This was maybe my favorite job. We investigated Nazi war criminals, and I worked on many interesting cases, including the case of John Demjanjuk. During my five years at the Office of Special Investigations, Judge Creppy became the Chief Immigration Judge. Since I knew him from my work in employer sanctions at INS, I called to congratulate him, and he suggested that I apply for an Immigration Judge position. I applied and got the job.
Judge Denise Slavin
I started work as an IJ in 1995. My first assignment was in Miami doing non-detained cases. I loved it there–the city was exotic and multicultural. It almost felt like I wasn’t living in the United States. It was also a good court for me to start my career on the bench. I hadn’t practiced in Miami as a Trial Attorney, so there were no expectations of me. Also, it is a large court with many judges to learn from.
I did non-detained cases for 10 years in Miami, but the work started to become a bit tedious. An opportunity came up and I transferred to the detained docket at Krome Detention Center. I loved working on those cases. The legal issues were cutting edge. I remember one three-month period, where our cases resulted in three published BIA decisions. For detained cases, the law develops quickly, and it was very challenging to keep up to speed.
I would have been happy to remain in Miami, but family issues brought me to Baltimore. The DHS and private-bar attorneys in Baltimore are very professional, and my colleagues were excellent mentors. All this helped make my time there very enjoyable.
Asylumist: What could DHS attorneys and the private bar do better in terms of presenting their cases? Are there any common problems that you observed as an IJ?
Judge Slavin: There are a lot of good DHS attorneys in Baltimore. DHS attorneys get a lot of credit with judges if they narrow the issues and stipulate to portions of the case. For example, it is so tedious when DHS inquires about every step the alien takes from her country to the United States. If there is no issue with the journey to the U.S., it is not worth going into all this, and it uses up precious court time. When DHS attorneys ask such questions, it would sometimes be frustrating for me as a Judge, since I do not know what they have in their file and what they might be getting at. But if there is nothing there, it is very frustrating to sit through. DHS attorneys should only explore such avenues of questioning if they think there is an issue there. When they focus on real issues, and don’t waste time sidetracking, they gain credibility with the IJs.
As for the private bar, I appreciate pre-hearing briefs on particular social groups. Also, explaining whether the applicant is claiming past persecution and the basis for that, whether there is a time bar, and nexus. Of course, this can sometimes be straightforward, but other times, it is a bigger issue and a brief is more important.
I encourage both parties to work together to reach agreement on issues whenever possible. Court time is so valuable, Judges want to spend it on the disputed issues.
Asylumist: What about lawyers who are bad actors, and who violate the rules?
Judge Slavin: IJs are prohibited from reporting attorneys directly to bar associations. Instead, we report the offending lawyer to internal EOIR bar counsel, who then makes a decision about whether or not to go to the state bar. Personally, I have been hesitant to report private attorneys because I think the system is unfair–it allows you to report a private attorney, but not a DHS attorney. Although this is unfair (and it is another reason why Immigration Courts should be Article I courts), there were times when I had to report blatant cases of attorney misconduct.
Asylumist: Looking at your TRAC statistics, your denial rates are much higher for detained cases. Some of this probably relates to criminal convictions and the one-year asylum bar, but can you talk about the difference in grant rates for detained vs. non-detained cases? Do IJs view detained cases differently? Perhaps in terms of the REAL ID Act’s evidentiary requirements (since it is more difficult to get evidence if you are detained)?
Judge Slavin: There were two detention centers in the Miami area—Krome and Broward Transitional Center–and they produced two different types of cases. At Krome, detainees mostly had convictions and had been in the U.S. for years. It is very difficult to win asylum if you have been here for that long. It’s hard to show that anyone would remember you, let alone persecute you, if you return to your country after a decade or more. BTC held newly arriving individuals who were claiming asylum. They generally had more viable claims.
As a Judge, I did account for people being detained. I didn’t want to deprive someone of the right to get a piece of evidence, but I didn’t want to keep the person detained for an extra three months at government expense to get the document. If there is no overriding reason to require corroboration, I would not require it for detained applicants. In many cases, corroboration that you would normally expect, you cannot get in the 30-day time-frame of a detained case. I have continued cases were there was needed corroboration, but I generally tried to avoid that.
Also, in adjudicating detained cases, it is important to consider the spirit of the asylum law, which is generous. But for people with convictions, we have to balance the need to protect an individual from persecution against the competing interest to protect the United States from someone who has committed crimes here. In a non-detained asylum case, the potential asylee should be given the benefit of the doubt, but–for example–in a detained case where the applicant has multiple criminal convictions, the person may not receive such a benefit of the doubt, and a Judge would rather err, if at all, on the side of caution and protect the community.
Asylumist: Again, looking at the TRAC statistics, your grant rates tend to be higher than other IJs in your local court. What do you think accounts for that? How do different IJs evaluate cases so differently?
Judge Slavin: In asylum cases, we don’t have a computer to input information and come up with an answer. The immigration bench does and should reflect the diverse political backgrounds of people in our country. I am more on the liberal side, but I will defend colleagues who are more conservative. We don’t want only middle-of-the road judges; we want the immigration bench to reflect our society.
As far as the TRAC numbers, it’s true that people who are represented by attorneys are generally more successful in court. However, if you have a bad case, most decent lawyers won’t take it. Such cases would be denied even with a lawyer. Since people with weak cases have a harder time finding lawyers, the disparity between represented and unrepresented individuals is not as dramatic as the TRAC statistics suggest.
Asylumist: One idea for reducing disparities between IJs is to hold training sessions where “easy” and “hard” judges evaluate a case and discuss how they reach different conclusions. Do you think this is something that would be helpful? What type of training do IJs need?
Judge Slavin: We have not had this type of training, but it would be interesting. EOIR has not been consistent about training. In-person trainings come and go. They do hold video training sessions, but these are horrible. Judges would get some time off the bench to watch the videos, but due to the pressing backlog, we would usually do other work while we were watching.
Also, looking at talking heads is not a good way to learn new information. In addition, the social opportunities to talk to other Judges with different backgrounds and different judicial philosophies that occur only during in-person trainings are invaluable.
The National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) has tried to get EOIR to hold different types of trainings, such as regional conferences–where, for example, all the IJs in the Eleventh Circuit would get together–but unfortunately, EOIR has not gone for that approach.
In my experience, the more interactive trainings are more helpful. I’ve learned the most from talking with other IJs and from in-person trainings. This was one of the advantages of serving on a big court like Miami–the opportunity to interact with many other judges and see how they handled their dockets.
Another idea is to give IJs “sabbatical time” off the bench, to observe the cases of other judges. Seeing and talking to other judges about how they handle different issues is very helpful.
Asylumist: You mentioned the NAIJ, the National Association of Immigration Judges, which is basically a union for Immigration Judges. How did you get involved with the NAIJ? What did you do as a member and leader of that organization?
Judge Slavin: I had two mentors–Judge Bruce Solow and Judge John Gossart–who were both past presidents of NAIJ. They encouraged me to get involved with the organization. I ran for Vice President with Judge Dana Leigh Marks, who ran for President. I call Judge Marks my sister from another mother. I love her to death. Prior to becoming VP, I had done some secretarial-type duties for the NAIJ, like taking the minutes. I originally joined NAIJ to help improve the Immigration Court system.
As they say, bad management makes for good unions. When management is good, the number of NAIJ members falls, and when management is bad, more judges join. The situation these days is not good. In particular, the politicization of the Immigration Courts has been outrageous. This has been going on in several administrations, but has reached a peak in the current Administration.
Another issue is that we have judges doing more and more with less and less. It’s crazy. When I was in Miami and we had a thousand cases per judge, we were hysterical. When I left the court in Baltimore, I had 5,000 cases! Despite this, management at EOIR thinks that judges are not producing. The idea of this is absurd. Management simply does not recognize what we are doing, and this is bad for morale.
The previous Director of EOIR, Juan Osuna, appreciated the court and the judges, even if there were some political issues. When you have someone who does not appreciate what you are doing, and who gives you production quotas, it creates a very difficult environment.
These days, I do worry, especially for the newer judges. If you have to focus on getting cases done quickly, it will cause other problems–some cases that might have been granted will be denied if the applicant does not have time to gather evidence. Also, while many decisions can be made from the bench, for others, the Judge needs time to think things through. For me, I had to sleep on some of my cases–they were close calls. I needed time to decide how best to be true to the facts and the law. I also had to think about how my decision might affect future cases—most IJs want to be consistent, at least with their own prior decisions. To make proper decisions often takes time, and if judges do not have time to make good decisions, there will be appeals and reversals. For these reasons, production quotas will be counter-productive in the long run.
Other problems with the court system include the aimless docket reshuffling, which started with the Obama administration. IJs should determine on their own how cases are set on their dockets. Cases should be set when they are ready to go forward, not based on the priorities of DHS.
The main issue here is that DHS [the prosecutor] is very much controlling EOIR [the court]. The ex-parte communication that occurs on the macro level is unheard of–the priorities of DHS are communicated through backdoor channels to EOIR, and then EOIR changes its priorities. Have you ever heard of a state prosecutor’s office telling a state court which cases to set first? This re-shuffling affects IJs’ dockets–we would receive lists of case numbers that we had to move to the front of the queue. We had no control over which cases had to be moved. Instead, cases were advance based on DHS priorities.
Maybe one silver lining of the politicization under the current Administration is that it has helped people realize the need for an Article I court.
Asylumist: Bad management makes for good unions. What is your opinion of the leadership at EOIR today? What more could they do to support judges?
Judge Slavin: It’s hard to think about EOIR in this political environment. Former Director Juan Osuna was wonderful. He spent a lot of time minimizing damage to the court by the Department of Justice and Congress; for example, by explaining how judicial independence and due process prevented placing artificial constraints on the number or length of continuances granted. These concepts seem to elude the current leadership of EOIR, and the administration has moved to strip us of the tools we need (such as administrative closure) to control our dockets.
The court has many needs that are not being addressed. We need more and better training. We need larger courtrooms–it drives me crazy that we cannot get courtrooms the size we need; with children, families, and lawyers–we need more space.
Also, we need more judges. I retired, and a lot of people coming up behind me are getting ready to retire. It is hard to keep up with the numbers. One idea is to implement phased retirement for IJs, so judges could work two or three days per week. This was approved four years ago, but not implemented. I do not know why.
Judge Marks [former President of the NAIJ] and I talked to EOIR about hiring retired IJs back on a part-time basis. We asked about this 10 years ago, and they are finally getting around to it. That will help, and hopefully, EOIR can step up that program.
Recent changes that affected judges directly, such as limiting administrative closure, are not good for case management.
The NAIJ leadership and I have talked to EOIR Director James McHenry about some of this. He is not getting it. He is very young, and he thinks he has a new approach, but he does not know the history or background of EOIR, and he does not seem to grasp what the agency needs to do. He also does not understand how overworked judges have been for such a long time, and seems to think the problems with the court are based on lack of commitment and work ethic of the judges. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Asylumist: How would it help if Immigration Courts became Article I courts?
Judge Slavin: Article I courts would still be part of the Executive Branch. Immigration is a plenary power, but when it comes to case-by-case adjudication, that issue disappears. The bottom line is that people are entitled to due process, and that requires judicial independence. I don’t think you can have due process without judicial independence. This is one of the hallmarks of the America legal system. Even arriving aliens are entitled to due process. If we change that, we are starting to give up who we are. If we are trying to save the U.S. from terrorists by eliminating due process for all, what are we saving? It is taking away an important tenant of our democratic system.
There is a plan to transition the Immigration Courts to Article I courts. The Bankruptcy Court did it. The plan allows for grandfathering of sitting IJs for a limited period. The sooner this is done, the easier it will be. And in fact, it must be done.
If we had Article I courts, we would eliminate aimless docket reshuffling and political priorities. Judges would control their own dockets, and this would lead to better morale and better efficiency.
Asylumist: Thank you for talking to me today.
Judge Slavin: Thank you
********************************************
We’ll said, Denise, my long-time friend and colleague!
As long as there is a DOJ and EOIR is part of it, there will be “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and “Extreme Mission Failure” meaning that “guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all” will be unachievable.
In reviewing such decisions, we treat factual findings “as conclusive unless the evidence was such that any reasonable adjudicator would have been compelled to a contrary view,” and we uphold the agency’s determinations “unless they are manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.” Tassi v. Holder, 660 F.3d 710, 719 (4th Cir. 2011). These standards demand deference, but they do not render our review toothless. The agency “abuse[s] its discretion if it fail[s] to offer a reasoned explanation for its decision, or if it distort[s] or disregard[s] important aspects of the applicant’s claim.” Id.; accord Zavaleta-Policiano, 873 F.3d at 247.
Orellana contends that the IJ and the BIA did precisely this in their reasoning as to whether the Salvadoran government was willing and able to protect her.3 We must agree. Examination of the record demonstrates that the agency adjudicators erred in their treatment of the evidence presented. Here, as in Tassi and Zavaleta-Policiano, the agency adjudicators both disregarded and distorted important aspects of the applicant’s claim.
First, agency adjudicators repeatedly failed to offer “specific, cogent reason[s]” for disregarding the concededly credible, significant, and unrebutted evidence that Orellana provided. Tassi, 660 F.3d at 722; accord Ai Hua Chen, 742 F.3d at 179. For example,
3 Orellana also contends that the BIA failed to conduct separate inquiries into the Salvadoran government’s “willingness” to protect her and its “ability” to do so. See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding legal error where the BIA considered a government’s efforts at offering protection without “examin[ing] the efficacy of those efforts”). After careful review of the record, we must reject this contention. The BIA applied the proper legal framework. It treated “willingness” and “ability” as distinct legal concepts, and it sufficiently addressed each in its order.
9
Orellana testified that during her third attempt to obtain a protective order in 2009, the Salvadoran family court refused to offer aid and instead directed her to the police station, which also turned her away. Yet the IJ gave this evidence no weight.
The IJ declined to do so on the theory that it was “unclear and confusing as to why exactly she was not able to get assistance from either the police or the court during these times.” But the record offers no evidence to support the view that the Salvadoran government officials had good reason for denying Orellana all assistance. Cf. Tassi, 660 F.3d at 720 (requiring agency to “offer a specific, cogent reason for rejecting evidence” as not credible). Rather, Orellana offered the only evidence of their possible motive aside from the family court officials’ claim that they were “too busy” — namely, uncontroverted expert evidence that “[d]iscriminatory gender biases are prevalent among [Salvadoran] government authorities responsible for providing legal protection to women.”
Nor did the IJ or the BIA address Orellana’s testimony, which the IJ expressly found credible, that she called the police “many times” during a twelve-year period, calls to which the police often did not respond at all. This testimony, too, was uncontroverted. To “arbitrarily ignore[]” this “unrebutted, legally significant evidence” and focus only on the isolated instances where police did respond constitutes an abuse of discretion.Zavaleta-Policiano, 873 F.3d at 248 (quoting Baharon v. Holder, 588 F.3d 228, 233 (4th Cir. 2009)); accord Hernandez-Avalos, 784 F.3d at 951 (“[A]n IJ is not entitled to ignore an asylum applicant’s testimony in making . . . factual findings.”).
10
The agency’s analysis also “distorted” the record evidence concerning the instances of government involvement. Tassi, 660 F.3d at 719. For example, although the IJ accepted as credible Orellana’s testimony that Salvadoran family court employees rebuffed her third request for a protective order because “they were too busy” and suggested that she try again another day, the IJ inexplicably concluded from this testimony that Salvadoran family court employees “offered continued assistance” to Orellana. The IJ similarly distorted the record in finding that, in 2006, “the [family] court in El Salvador acted on [Orellana’s] behalf” when it took no action against Garcia, and in finding that, in 2009, a different Salvadoran court “attempted to assist” Orellana bydenying her the protective order that she requested.
Despite these errors, the Government asserts three reasons why the BIA’s order assertedly finds substantial evidentiary support in the record. None are persuasive.
First, the Government argues that Orellana’s own testimony established that she had “access to legal remedies” in El Salvador. But access to a nominal or ineffectual remedy does not constitute “meaningful recourse,” for the foreign government must be both willing and able to offer an applicant protection. Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 921 (9th Cir. 2010). As the Second Circuit has explained, when an applicant offers unrebutted evidence that “despite repeated reports of violence to the police, no significant action was taken on [her] behalf,” she has provided “ample ground” to conclude “that the BIA was not supported by substantial evidence in its finding that [she] did not show that the government was unwilling to protect [her] from private persecution.” Aliyev v.
Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111, 119 (2d Cir. 2008). Evidence of empty or token “assistance” 11
cannot serve as the basis of a finding that a foreign government is willing and able to protect an asylum seeker.
Second, the Government contends that Orellana cannot show that the Salvadoran government is unable or unwilling to protect her because she did not report her abuse until 1999 and later abandoned the legal process. But Orellana’s initial endurance of Garcia’s abuse surely does not prove the availability of government protection during the decade-long period that followed, during which time she did seek the assistance of the Salvadoran government without success. As to Orellana’s asserted abandonment of the Salvadoran legal process, we agree with the Government that an applicant who relinquishes a protective process without good reason will generally be unable to prove her government’s unwillingness or inability to protect her. But there is no requirement that an applicant persist in seeking government assistance when doing so (1) “would have been futile” or (2) “have subjected [her] to further abuse.” Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, Orellana offered undisputed evidence of both.
Finally, the Government suggests that even if the Salvadoran government had previously been unwilling or unable to help Orellana, country conditions had changed by 2009 such that she could receive meaningful protection. Because the agency never asserted this as a justification for its order, principles of administrative law bar us from
12
dismissing the petition on this basis. See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94–95 (1943).4
We have often explained that an applicant for asylum is “entitled to know” that agency adjudicators “reviewed all [her] evidence, understood it, and had a cogent, articulable basis for its determination that [her] evidence was insufficient.” Rodriguez- Arias v. Whitaker, 915 F.3d 968, 975 (4th Cir. 2019); accord, e.g., Baharon, 588 F.3d at 233 (“Those who flee persecution and seek refuge under our laws have the right to know that the evidence they present . . . will be fairly considered and weighed by those who decide their fate.”). That did not happen here.
We therefore vacate the order denying Orellana asylum.5 On remand, the agency must consider the relevant, credible record evidence and articulate the basis for its decision to grant or deny relief.
This is how “malicious incompetence” builds backlog. This case has been pending since March 2011, more than eight years.It has been before an Immigration Judge twice, the BIA three times, and the Fourth Circuit twice. Yet, after eight years, three courts, seven judicial decisions, and perhaps as many as 17 individual judges involved, nobody has yet gotten it right! This is a straightforward “no brainer” asylum grant!
However, the Fourth Circuit, rather than putting an end to this continuing judicial farce, remands to the BIA who undoubtedly will remand to the Immigration Judge. Who knows how many more years, hearings, and incorrect decisions will go by before this respondent actually gets the justice to which she is entitled?
Or maybe she won’t get justice at all. Who knows what the next batch of judges will do? And, even ifthe respondent “wins,” is getting asylum approximately a decade after it should have been granted really “justice?” This respondent actually could and should be a U.S. citizen by now!
To make things worse, although the DHS originally agreed that most of the facts, the “particular social group,” as well as “nexus” were “uncontested,” now, after eight years of litigating on that basis, likely spurred by Session’s White Nationalist unethical attack on the system in Matter of A-B-, the DHS apparently intends to “contest” the previously stipulated particular social group.
Rather than putting an end to this nonsense and sanctioning the Government lawyers involved for unethical conduct and delay, the Fourth Circuit merely “notes in passing,” thereby inviting further delay and abuse of the asylum system by the DHS and EOIR.
This well-documented, clearly meritorious case should have been granted by the Immigration Judge, in a short hearing, back in March 2013, and the DHS should have (and probably would have, had the Immigration Judge acted properly) waived appeal.
Indeed, in a functional system, there would be a mechanism for trained Asylum Officers to grant these cases expeditiously without even sending them to Immigration Court.
The bias, incompetence, and mismanagement of the Immigration Court system, and the unwarranted tolerance by the Article III Courts, even those who see what is really happening, is what has sent the system out of control
Don’t let the Administration, Congress, the courts, or anyone else blame the victims of this governmental and judicial misbehavior — the asylum seekers and their lawyers, who are intentionally being dehumanized, demeaned, and denied justice in a system clearly designed to screw asylum seekers, particularly women fleeing persecution from the Northern Triangle!
We don’t need a change in asylum law.We need better judges and better administration of the Asylum Office, as well as some professionalism, sanity, and discipline from ICE and CBP about what cases they choose to place in an already overtaxed system.
That’s why it’s critical for advocates not to let the Article IIIs “off the hook” when they improperly “defer” to a bogus system that currently does not merit any deference, rather than exposing the misfeasance in this system and forcing it to finally comply with Constitutional Due Process of law.
While the statute says Article III Courts should “defer” to fact findings below, such deference should be “one and done.” In cases such as this, where EOIR has already gotten it wrong (here five times at two levels), Due Process should require “enhanced scrutiny” by the Article IIIs.
It’s welcome to get a correct published analysis from an Article III.
But, as noted by the Fourth Circuit, this is at least the third time the BIA has ignored the Fourth Circuit’s published precedents by “disregarding and distorting” material elements of a respondent’s claim. There is a name for such conduct: fraud.
Yet, the Fourth Circuit seems unwilling to confront either the BIA or their apologists at the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) for their unethical, incompetent, frivolous, and frankly, contemptuous behavior.
That’s why it’s absolutely critical for the advocacy community (the “New Due Process Army”) to keep pushing cases like this into the Article III Courts and forcing them to confront their own unduly permissive attitude toward the BIA which is helping to destroy our system of justice.
And, if the Article IIIs don’t get some backbone and creativity and start pushing back against the corrupt mess at EOIR, they will soon find the gross backlogs caused by “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and “malicious incompetence” will be transferring to their dockets from EOIR.
Due Process Forever; complicity in the face of “malicious incompetence,” never!
On a weekday morning inside 26 Federal Plaza, you’ll see hundreds of people waiting in lines outside the small immigration courtrooms housed on the 12th and 14th floors. These hallways and courtrooms have no windows, making the place feel even more claustrophobic as guards remind everyone to stand against the walls to avoid blocking traffic.
In this bureaucratic setting, you’ll meet people from Central America, China, India and Eastern Europe all trying to stay in the U.S. Parents clutch the tiny hands of toddlers who want to run and play. Inside the court rooms, mothers hold crying babies on their laps and parents with large families cluster their children around them once they’re seated before a judge.
It’s a pressure cooker. Not only because each immigrant’s fate eventually will be decided here, but because judges complain their jobs have never been busier or more politicized. There’s a backlog of almost 900,000 cases, according to TRAC. The Justice Department, which oversees the immigration court system, established a quota for judges to complete 700 cases per year, an especially high hurdle in New York City, according to a WNYC analysis, because it’s the nation’s busiest immigration court. Meanwhile, the judges have new constraints in their ability to grant asylum because former Attorney General Jeff Sessions decided certain cases are not eligible. Judges are now granting asylum less often — even in New York, where immigrants historically had an easier time winning. Many judges and lawyers believe these actions show how the immigration court is becoming a vehicle for President Trump’s immigration agenda.
In a city where about 40 percent of residents were born abroad, New Yorkers have passionate views on immigration. Yet, few get to see where immigrants learn an often life-or-death decision. Trials are closed to the public, and sitting judges are not allowed to speak to the media. WNYC spent months in the main immigration court at Federal Plaza observing hearings to see how judges are handling new pressures, and how they interact with immigrants and lawyers (most of whom wanted to remain anonymous because they don’t want to hurt their cases). We focused on new judges who have taken the bench since Trump became president.
Here is what we learned.
Judges Who Worked for ICE or the Justice Department
Judges Lena Golovnin, Maria Lurye, Lisa Ling and Jem Sponzo.
(Jane Rosenberg for WNYC)
Eighteen judges in New York City started since Trump took office — almost half of all immigration judges here. Those new hires are under probation their first two years, putting them under extra pressure to meet priorities set by the Justice Department. Eight judges were lawyers at Immigration and Customs Enforcementand another had a similar role at the Justice Department. Their old jobs were to make the government’s case for deporting immigrants. Now, they’re supposed to be neutral adjudicators.
Lena Golovnin worked for ICE before starting as a judge in August 2018. From the bench, she speaks briskly and is very polite when handling 50-100 procedural hearings in a morning, typical for New York judges. Judges also schedule trial dates during these hearings but the backlog is so long, some won’t happen until 2023.
During a visit to her courtroom in December, Golovnin was stern with an attorney whose 16-year-old client didn’t provide school records to excuse himself from court that day. Minors don’t have to come to court if they’re enrolled in school, but proof is needed. “I’m not happy,” Golovnin said, noting the boy could have asked his school to fax the records to court.
The boy’s lawyer asked for an extra day to provide the records, but the government trial attorney objected. Golovnin then ordered the boy removed in absentia. This did not mean he’d be immediately deported because his lawyer could apply to reopen the case. But several attorneys and former judges said this was harsh, and that a more seasoned judge would have given the lawyer and client an extra day.
Some immigration lawyers worry too many judges come from ICE, but they acknowledge that experience doesn’t automatically bias them against immigrants. One lawyer called Golovnin a “delightful person” who should be a good judge. The Justice Department had a history long before Trump of hiring ICE attorneys as judges because of their immigration trial experience.
“I would much rather have a trial attorney as a judge,” said Stan Weber, a former ICE attorney who is now an immigration lawyer in Brooklyn. “I know that personally,” he said, adding that of the former ICE trial attorneys on the bench, “many of them I helped train.”
It’s difficult to measure which judges are more favorable to immigrants, but one factor is how often they grant asylum. This data is collected by TRAC and updated once a year. Not all new judges had completed enough cases to measure, but others did.
Judge Jem Sponzo came from the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation. She was appointed at the end of the Obama administration and took the bench in 2017. TRAC calculated she grants asylum about 69 percent of the time — a little lower than average for New York City’s court, which was more than 80 percent before Trump took office. Another judge, Paula Donnolo, had a grant rate of 80 percent. She left suddenly in March before her two-year probation period ended. Neither the Justice Department, Donnolo nor her union would comment.
Judges Donald Thompson, Michael McFarland, Cynthia Gordon and James McCarthy all used to work for ICE.
(Jane Rosenberg for WNYC)
Judge James McCarthy started in July 2017 and his asylum grant rate is 36 percent. McCarthy can seem gruff and no nonsense but he has a hearty laugh. In December, one attorney had a complicated case involving two teenage brothers in foster care, neither of whom came to court. When McCarthy gave the boys another court date, the government’s lawyer objected to granting them extra time without a prior discussion. The judge ignored this objection, adding “it’s in the best interest of the children” for them to get another day in court.
He also pushed back at a government lawyer’s line of questioning during an African man’s deportation trial. The wife testified that her husband had become more mature since committing minor crimes in his youth plus a felony conviction for robbery. The government lawyer asked her, “Have you ever heard the expression ‘talk is cheap’?” Judge McCarthy reproached her with, “that’s not a question.”
According to TRAC, Judge Donald Thompson granted asylum to 75 percent of immigrants in the last year. Not surprisingly, immigration lawyers call him “a wonderful judge.” One attorney in Thompson’s courtroom was representing a Nigerian woman seeking asylum, because she claimed to be a victim of female genital mutilation. She was given a trial date in May 2021. When the attorney expressed a desire to go sooner, Thompson found a date in September.
Taramatee Nohire came to Judge Lisa Ling’s court one day in December. She’s seeking asylum because she claims she’ll be persecuted in her native Trinidad for being a Kali worshipper. “I was a bit nervous,” she said, about going to immigration court. She was still collecting documents that are hard to obtain. “That also made me have anxiety,” she added. Her attorney, Pertinderjit Hora, was glad when Ling scheduled the trial for November, giving her more time to prepare the case. She expected the newly-minted judge to be scheduling cases even sooner.
In trials, judges have to listen to hours of testimony by immigrants and their witnesses — often with the help of a translator. During one asylum trial, Judge Cynthia Gordon asked many detailed questions of a Central American woman who claimed she was a victim of domestic abuse. The woman’s attorney said the judge’s questions made it feel like there were two trial attorneys in the room.
Another judge who formerly worked for ICE, Susan Beschta, started as a punk rocker before becoming a lawyer. She was hired last fall and died this month.
Judges Who Used to Represent Immigrants
Judges Howard Hom, Maria Navarro and Charles Conroy.
(Jane Rosenberg for WNYC)
Although the Department of Justice selects many ICE attorneys as judges, it also chooses lawyers who have represented immigrants, as well as those who have worked in various government agencies.
Judge Charles Conroy worked for the Legal Aid Society and was an immigration lawyer in private practice. He wrote a play called “Removal” that was performed at the Manhattan Repertory Theatre in 2015. It was described as a legal drama on its website.
“Two immigrants find themselves caught up in America’s deportation system — a Haitian escaping the torture he suffered back home at the hands of his government and a mentally ill Cambodian brought to the U.S. as a young child decades ago. Their attorney, Jennifer Coral, fights to keep them both in the U.S., but their common struggle opens old wounds and exposes a deep political and cultural rift in America.”
Immigration lawyers expected Conroy would often rule in their favor. However, since taking the bench in 2017, TRAC calculated that he denied asylum about half the time.
In court, Conroy seemed focused on moving cases as expeditiously as possible. He spoke quickly and rarely looked up from his desk. He reminded each lawyer which documents they needed to take before they leave. One lawyer said, “He will not bend at all accepting documents that are late.”
But another immigration lawyer called him, “a nearly perfect judge. Impartial, smart, efficient and knows the law.”
Many lawyers said they have a good shot with Judge Maria Navarro, who also worked for the Legal Aid Society. She has an asylum grant rate of 85.5 percent.
Another new judge, Howard Hom, worked as an immigration attorney. But he was also an administrative law judge for California and a trial attorney with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Judges With No Immigration Trial Experience
Judges Samuel Factor, Oshea Spencer and Brian Palmer.
(Jane Rosenberg for WNYC)
Last November, the Justice Department issued a memo requiring judges to expedite family cases and complete their trials within a year or less. Most appear to be families from Central America who crossed the border in the past year. Their cases are often assigned to new judges who have more room on their calendars. Some of these judges had no prior immigration experience.
Judge Oshea Denise Spencer was an attorney with the Public Utility Commission of Texas before becoming an immigration judge last October. She was assigned many of the family unit cases the Justice Department wants completed quickly. In mid-December, she told one attorney representing a Honduran mother and son that she wanted to move their asylum trial from May to March. The attorney objected because she’s juggling so many cases at her busy nonprofit. “It would be a violation of due process,” she said. Spencer let the attorney keep her original date.
Judge Samuel Factor was an administrative law judge with New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance before becoming an immigration judge in October, 2018. By December, he was so busy he was scheduling trials in August 2020. “Give me 15 minutes we’ll be in 2021,” he joked to an attorney. He then apologized to another attorney for needing to schedule a trial in 2021. But in a family case involving a woman and child from Guatemala, he scheduled the trial much sooner, in October.
Judge Brian Palmer was previously an attorney, judge and commanding officer in the U.S. Marine Corps before taking the bench last October. Some immigration lawyers wonder why he’d want the job.
“On the Brink of Collapse?”
This year, the American Bar Association declared the U.S. immigration courts “on the brink of collapse.” It cited the quota system, and new rules from former Attorney General Sessions that took away judges’ ability to control their dockets. Meanwhile, the backlog grows as more migrants arrive at the border and some cases get delayed.
According to data obtained by WNYC, 14,450 hearings were adjourned in fiscal year 2018 because the judges couldn’t finish them — an increase from 9,181 from the previous year. More than 1,700 of those adjournments were in New York City. And there aren’t enough translators. More than 5,300 hearings were adjourned in fiscal year 2018 because no interpreter was scheduled, an increase from 3,787 the previous year.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, a division of the Justice Department which runs the nation’s immigration courts, said those numbers aren’t even half of 1 percent of all 1.3 million hearings that year.
Nonetheless, these problems do affect the flow of a courtroom. In December, Judge Howard Hom was scheduling cases involving Punjabi speakers later than others because he couldn’t get a translator until September. Another judge, Maria Lurye, decided to group her 47 cases on a morning in March to make them move more efficiently. She started by calling all attorneys whose clients were seeking asylum.
“Are all of your clients here today?” Lurye asked. “Yes,” eight lawyers replied in unison. She then gave them different trial dates in April 2022, without taking individual pleadings. After that, she formed a group for other cases that were similar. The judge was able to see about 17 cases in 90 minutes, slightly faster than without the groupings.
Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, described her members as being under a huge strain. “We are absolutely seeing some of the lowest morale and anxiety that’s completely unprecedented,” she said. The union leader also said the quotas have only made things worse because they risk sacrificing due process for expediency. Judges now see dashboards on their computers showing in red, yellow and green, indicating if they’re on target for their case completion goals.
Two examples of the dashboards the Justice Department uses to monitor an immigration judge’s case completion rate.
(Courtesy of National Association of Immigration Judges)
In a congressional subcommittee hearing, Executive Office for Immigration Review Director James McHenry defended the quotas. He said immigration judges completed more cases in Fiscal Year 2018 than in any year since 2011. He called this a “direct refutation” of critics who claim judges lack the integrity and competence “to resolve cases in both a timely and impartial manner.”
But because of the ways in which President Trump’s Justice Department is shaping the immigration court, one New York City immigration lawyer, Jake LaRaus, said it is “at best a kangaroo court.”
Former New York immigration judge Jeffrey Chase said, “All moves made by this administration must be viewed as pieces in a puzzle designed to erode the independence of immigration judges in order to allow the administration to better control case outcomes to conform with its political goals.”
This month, the judges union and a coalition of former judges each wrote stern letters to the Justice Department for releasing “wildly inaccurate and misleading information” in a fact sheet it released to the media about the courts.
A New Path for Immigration Court
An empty judge’s chair in New York City’s immigration court.
(Jane Rosenberg for WNYC)
The judges’ union wants to take the immigration court out of the Executive Branch and make it independent, like tax and bankruptcy courts. These are called Article Icourts. Congress would have to approve this change.
The Federal Bar Association has drafted model legislation for an Article I court. Judges would have fixed terms, and they’d be able to hold lawyers in contempt. Though this won’t solve the backlog problem, many academics and immigration lawyers support the plan because it would free the immigration court from the Justice Department’s bureaucracy and politics.
The Trump administration opposes the proposal. The Executive Office for Immigration Review said no organization has studied the cost or fully explored the ramifications. It says it’s solving the court’s backlog with quotas and by hiring 200 new judges, through new positions and filling vacancies. But nationally, there are just 435 judges.
An independent Article I court won’t be an easy sell in Congress, either. Elizabeth Stevens, who helped draft the Federal Bar Association’s proposal for the immigration court and previously worked in the Justice Department, said the only hope is for supporters to focus on courtroom efficiency.
“If it becomes politicized it becomes another issue of comprehensive immigration reform,” she warned.
There’s another immigration court in downtown Manhattan, in a federal building on Varick Street. It was previously just for immigrants held in detention, but with Federal Plaza running out of room, the government opened new courtrooms at the Varick location in March.
Two new judges, Conroy and Ling, moved to Varick Street. There are also four brand new judges who started this spring. Two of them previously worked for ICE. One was an assistant district attorney in Suffolk County and the other was a domestic relations magistrate in Trumball, Ohio.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review is planning to open more courtrooms in New York this year. It would like to hire 100 more judges nationally in the next fiscal year. The judges union believes it needs hundreds more than that to manage the backlog.
T
