"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Professor Maureen Sweeney (l) with student attorney Tonya Foley ’21.
Tonya Foley ’21 knew she was meant for a career in immigration law well before applying to law school. Living in Naples, Italy, during the 2015 refugee crisis, the mom of two was deeply impacted by her interactions with people who had risked their lives in rubber boats to find a safe harbor.
So, when picking a law school, one of the most important factors for Foley was a robust immigration clinic. That’s why she chose the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law.
“I feel strongly about using the privilege of this education to help people,” said Foley. “The immigration system is so complicated that legal representation can make all the difference.”
Foley and her colleagues at the Maryland Carey Law Immigration Clinic, led by Professor Maureen Sweeney, proved that last fall when they won permanent residency for the mother in a family with two teenagers who had never known another home than the United States.
The student attorneys, including Foley, Alba Sanchez Fabelo ’20, and Miles Light ’21, “did an amazing job,” said Sweeney, “gaining the trust of the family, documenting the hardship that would accompany deportation, and convincing the judge to grant residence.”
The case was referred to the Immigration Clinic by Maryland Carey Law alumna Michelle Mendez ’08, director of the Defending Vulnerable Populations program at the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), a national non-profit.
Through three job changes, Mendez had been working the case pro bono since her days as an Equal Justice Works fellow in 2009. That’s when her client was taken away in handcuffs in front of her two young children for a minor traffic violation (later dismissed) in the parking lot of a church where her husband was teaching youth group bible study, and turned directly over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Years passed as Mendez fought through multiple denials and appeals to keep her client in the country, finally getting the case reopened in light of new evidence that the mother’s daughter was exhibiting emotional issues—including a crippling fear of police officers—and learning disabilities at school. Arguments before Baltimore Immigration Court were set for November 2019.
“Knowing I could not give this family the time and attention they needed and deserved,” said Mendez, whose current position is travel intensive, “with a heavy heart, I asked Professor Maureen Sweeney if the University of Maryland Carey School of Law Immigration Clinic would take over the case. They were one of the only groups I would trust with it.”
Sweeney agreed and, at the start of the fall semester, the students got to work—meeting weekly with the family, tracking down expert witnesses, gathering evidence, preparing affidavits, and, finally, making their case in court just before Thanksgiving. The students’ preparation and presentation were so thorough and effective that the judge ruled for permanent residency stipulating exceptional hardship for the children if their mother were deported to a region in Central America with insufficient resources to meet the daughter’s special needs.
Foley, who will join Sweeney helping asylum seekers in Tijuana for this year’s Alternative Spring Break, said that working on the case was an incredible experience for her first time in immigration court. “I was honored to be able to help the client and give her family long-term peace and security,” she said. “It’s what I’m here to do.”
Equally thrilled by the result, Mendez is grateful for the clinic’s hard work. “It took more than a decade,” she said, “but we won the greatest prize—we kept a family together.”
All full-time day students at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law are guaranteed practical lawyering experience in the school’s many clinics and legal theory and practice classes. Each year, students in the Clinical Law Program provide 75,000 hours of free legal service to poor and other underrepresented populations and communities.
Share this article
***********************************************
Thanks so much Michelle, my good friend and colleague in the New Due Process Army, for sharing this inspiring and uplifting story. With so much “negative leadership” out there today and all too many “poor role models” among judges and lawyers who “should know better,” it’s refreshing to know that folks like Professor Maureen Sweeney, Tanya Foley ‘21, Alba Sanchez Fabelo ’20, Miles Light ’21, and you are out there as members of the “New Due Process Army” fighting for all of our legal rights in a system that all too often appears to have abandoned the basics of the rule of law, professional ethics, and human decency.
Saving Lives Makes A Difference; Due Process Forever!
Professor Laila L. Hlass Tulane LawProfessor Elora Mukherjee Columbia LawAdjunct Professor Carrie L. Rosenbaum Golden Gate LawProfessor Maureen Sweeney U. of Maryland Law
Four immigration law professors, Laila L. Hlass, Elora Mukherjee, Carrie L. Rosenbaum, and Maureen Sweeney on Slate criticize the Trump administration for barring immigration judges, Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys, and asylum officers from talking to classes about immigration law and policy.Such guest lectures were common in the recent past. However,
“things have recently changed. When we’ve asked judges, ICE attorneys, and asylum officers to visit our classes, almost all have declined. They’ve told us they can’t speak with our classes even on their days off, even in their personal capacities, without prior clearance and approval from high-level supervisors—approval that is increasingly difficult to obtain. This silencing of line officers is a marked departure from past years. It is taking place across the country, and it is no coincidence. The administration has denied these civil servants permission to speak publicly. According to former immigration judge Jeffrey Chase, immigration judges `are not even allowed to speak at conferences or law schools, because the administration does not consider them qualified to speak on behalf of the agency or its policies.’”
KJ
**********************************
Obviously, this is an “agency,” not a “court,” at war with the public it supposedly serves.
Somewhat “below the radar screen” in the Administration’s all-out White Nationalist attack on migrants is the assault on those who represent them. Studies show that represented individuals both show up for their hearings at an exceptionally high rate and succeed in their cases at a rate that is multiples of unrepresented individuals. Therefore, some type of “universal representation program” utilizing a combination of public and private sector funding, would be the “first logical step“ in solving the Due Process and operational crises in our Immigration Courts. And, it wouldn’t cost any more than the expensive, inhumane, often illegal, and frequently ineffective “enforcement only gimmicks” being employed against migrants, and often their attorneys, by this Administration.
This presentation is really striking, because Board Member Roger Pauley appears to be instructing the IJs not to apply the “categorical approach” when it doesn’t lead to a “sensible result.” The “categorical approach” is mandatory, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly had to reverse the BIA and instruct them to properly apply it. So, it’s definitely disheartening to see this is the instruction the IJs received at their conference this summer on how to apply the categorical approach:
****************************
Can’t say this is unprecedented. I can remember being astounded and outraged by some past presentations that essentially focused on “how to find the respondent not credible and have it stand up in court,” “how to deny claims establishing past or future persecution by invoking ‘no-nexus’ grounds,” and “how to find proposed ‘particular social groups non-cognizable’ under the BIA’s three-part test.”
I also remember a BIA Judge essentially telling us to ignore a previous “outside expert” panel that provided evidence that governments in the Northern Triangle were stunningly corrupt, politically beholden to gangs, and totally incapable of protecting the population against targeted gang violence.
Another colleague gave a stunningly tone-deaf presentation in which they referred to OIL and ICE as “us” and the respondents as “them.”
But, presentations like Judge Pauley’s are particularly troubling in the context of a so-called “training conference” where the “keynote speech” by the judges’ titular “boss” Jeff Sessions touted his decision removing asylum protections from battered women, warned judges to follow his precedents, emphasized increasing “volume” as the highest priority, and otherwise notably avoided mentioning the due process rights of respondents, the need to insure protection for asylum seekers, or the obligation to follow decisions of the Article III Courts (the latter has been, and remains, a chronic problem for EOIR).
Many of the Immigration Judges were recently hired, attending their first national conference. What message do you think they got about how to be successful in the “Age of Trump & Sessions?” What message did they get when a vocal minority of their colleagues improperly “cheered” the removal of protections for vulnerable refugee women? How would YOU like to be a foreign national fighting for your life in a system run by Jeff Sessions?
Right on cue, EOIR provides another powerful example of why Professor Maureen Sweeney was right in her recently posted article: the Article III Courts should NOT be giving the BIA or Sessions “Chevron deference.”
Go on over to ImmigrationProf Blog at the above link for all of the links necessary to get the abstract as well as the full article. Among the many current and former Immigration Judges quoted or cited in the article are Jeffrey Chase, Ashley Tabaddor, Dana Marks, Lory Rosenberg, Robert Vinikoor, and me. (I’m sure I’m missing some of our other colleagues; it’s a very long article, but well worth the read.)
In an article full of memorable passages, here is one of my favorites:
Full enforcement of the law requires full enforcement of provisions that grant protection as well as provisions that restrict border entry. This is the part of “enforcement” that the Department of Justice is not equipped to fully understand. The agency’s fundamental commitment to controlling unauthorized immigration does not allow it a neutral, open position on asylum questions. The foundational separation and balance of powers concerns at the heart of Chevron require courts to recognize that inherent conflict of interest as a reason Congress is unlikely to have delegated unchecked power on refugee protection to the prosecuting agency. In our constitutional structure, the courts stand as an essential check on the executive power to deport and must provide robust review to fully enforce the congressional mandate to protect refugees. If the courts abdicate this vital function, they will be abdicating their distinctive role in ensuring the full enforcement of all of our immigration law—including those provisions that seek to ensure compliance with our international obligations to protect individuals facing the danger of persecution.
This is a point that my friend and colleague Judge Lory Rosenberg made often during our tenure together on the BIA. All too often, her pleas fell on deaf ears.
The now abandoned pre-2001 “vision statement” of EOIR was “to be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Nothing in there about “partnering” with DHS to remove more individuals, fulfilling quotas, “sending messages to stay home,” securing the border, jacking up volume, deterring migration, or advancing other politically motivated enforcement goals. Indeed, the proper role of EOIR is to insure fair and impartial adjudication and Due Process for individuals even in the face of constant pressures to “just go along to get along” with a particular Administration’s desires to favor the expedient over the just.
Under all Administrations, the duty to insure Due Process, fairness, full protections, and the granting to benefits to migrants under the law is somewhat shortchanged at EOIR in relation to the pressure to promote Executive enforcement objectives. But, the situation under the xenophobic, disingenuous, self-proclaimed “Immigration Enforcement Czar” Jeff Sessions is a true national disgrace and a blot on our entire legal system. If Congress won’t do its job by removing the Immigration Courts from the DOJ forthwith, the Article III courts must step in, as Maureen suggests.
)
