"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.
Thanks to our leading “Warrior Queen” Ilyce and her team of knightesses and knights who took the lead on this phase of the never ending battle for “truth, justice, and the American way.”
I trust that it will take more than another pathetic “Alternative Fact Sheet” 🤥 to save the sorry bunch @ “EOIR’s Clown Tower”🤡🦹🏿♂️ in Falls Church from accountability for their sycophancy, false narratives, and constant assaults on due process, the rule of law, truth, and human decency. 👎🏻🏴☠️☠️⚰️🤮 https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1161001/download
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Indicative and very telling that as justice further deteriorates, backlogs mushroom, productivity drops, public outrage grows, chaos reigns, (already rock bottom) morale plummets, and vulnerable humans suffer, the “malicious incompetents” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ at EOIR spend time and public resources on this nonsense!
There will be neither racial justice nor social justice in America without “radical due process reform” that ends forever the disgraceful “Dred Scottification” of “the other” (particularly migrants of color, women, families, and, most disgustingly, children) by the EOIR Clown Courts!🤡🦹🏿♂️☠️ To paraphrase Rev. King, “Injustice to one is injustice to all.”
Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸👍🏼 EOIR’s Assault On Asylum Seekers, Never!👎🏻🏴☠️
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has proposed two rules that would significantly decrease the due process rights of people in immigration court. Both rules would restrict judges’ abilities to manage their dockets and require them to push through cases at breakneck speeds, further transforming the immigration court system into a deportation machine.
The first rule would severely limit the reopening of immigration cases after a judge enters an order of removal. Respondents or their attorneys routinely file motions to reopen because of previously unavailable evidence, changed country conditions, or a lack of proper notice of a hearing. This opportunity is crucial for people who are eligible for relief but were ordered deported for reasons beyond their control.
The rule would limit the reasons for which a case can be reopened, requiring significantly more evidence. This means that fewer people could overturn a deportation order, even if they now had another way to remain in the United States. The respondent would have to include their application for relief with the motion. Once their case is reopened, they would be barred from applying for any other kind of relief.
EOIR’s new rule would further limit case termination, a tool judges used in the past to remove low-priority cases from their dockets. It would also end nearly all discretionary stays of removal, which temporarily prevent a deportation in emergency situations.
Before the Board of Immigration Appeals would even consider an emergency stay of removal, immigrants would have to ask for a stay from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and wait up to five business days for a response. This delay could make the process practically useless in true emergencies.
The second rule would end most continuances in immigration court. Respondents and their attorneys, as well as attorneys for the Department of Homeland Security, frequently file motions for a continuance to request that an immigration judge delay a hearing.
Regulations currently allow judges to grant continuances if “good cause” exists, but do not provide a definition of “good cause.” For years, judges were allowed significant discretion in this area. A 2018 Attorney General decision limited the situations that were considered “good cause” for a continuance.
The proposed rule writes those restrictions into federal regulations, it would go even further by declaring that a wide variety of situations are not “good cause” for a continuance—even many situations where continuances are routinely granted under current rules.
For example, the new rule would severely limit continuances for immigrants who need to find a lawyer or appl for a form of relief outside of immigration court. Currently, judges are required to grant at least one continuance for respondents to find a lawyer if requested.
Under the proposed rule, immigration judges would not have to allow respondents time to find legal representation. Instead, they would be discouraged from giving an immigrant more time to find a lawyer. The only exception would be the rare cases in which a hearing occurs fewer than 30 days after the Notice to Appear is filed.
Eliminating docket-management tools could worsen the backlog.
Placing stricter requirements on these tools require judges to write longer justifications when they do grant them. Forcing immigrants to apply for relief in front of an immigration judge when they will likely be granted relief by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is an unnecessary use of the judge’s time. Many continuances allow respondents to find an attorney, which can shorten overall case completion time. Denying continuances can also increase the appeal backlog.
The public can comment on both the first and second proposed rules through December 28, 2020. It is extremely unlikely that the Trump administration could meaningfully review comments, respond to them, and finalize these rules before Biden’s inauguration on January 20, 2021.
Instead of pursuing policies that restrict due process for people seeking relief, EOIR should restore a full set of discretionary tools to immigration judges, including administrative closure, termination, and continuances. Judges can only make fair decisions in each unique case if allowed to manage their own dockets.
And many thanks to my friend Judge Alex Manuel over at the ABA National Conference of the Administrative Law Judiciary for bringing Katy’s outstanding and “accessible” analysis to my attention.
Along with my NAIJ colleagues Judge (Retired) Joan Churchill and Judge Mimi Tsankov, Judge Manuel has been a tireless activist, forceful advocate, and supporter of judicial independence for Immigration Judges and all Administrative Judges in government.
As Katy clearly and cogently says, far from reducing the backlog, these beyond idiotic proposals would further add to the already astounding backlog that the “malicious incompetents” at DOJ/EOIR/DHS have built over the past four years. Their “redesign” of the Immigration Courts into a “deportation railroad” has been a total “train wreck” (without minimizing the actual lives ruined and futures lost in “America’s Star Chambers” and the lasting damage inflicted on our justice system and our democracy)!
Let’s go over the basic principle for rationalizing dockets and eliminating backlogs as I have recently stated in speeches and other public presentations:
Treating individuals with unfailing fairness, simple courtesy, and respect, granting relief wherever possible and at the lowest possible levels of the system speeds things up and promotes best practices and maximum efficiency without stomping on anyone’s rights. And, it saves lives!
The current Falls Church kakistocracy must be immediately removed and replaced with qualified members of the NDPA committed to the foregoing principle.
Agitate, agitate, agitate with everyone you know with any influence in the incoming Biden-Harris Administration to insure that the curtain comes down for good on the EOIR Clown Show and that the Immigration Courts are independently run by real judges and real judicial administration from the NDPA who are unswervingly committed to “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
While we’re at it, compare Katy’s clear, succinct, understandable analysis with the turgid political gobbledegook that infects everything coming out of EOIR these days, from ridiculous regulations, to lousy anti-immigrant precedents, to nonsensical scheduling directives issued by the mid-level “clown apprentices” in the Falls Church circus! Obviously, when the Biden Administration and the NDPA reconstitute the EOIR public information function (A/K/A the “Politburo of Nativist Propaganda”) Katy should be high on the list of new faces who could help and support radical due process reform, innovation, and advancement at EOIR!
It’s not just a question of “repairing the damage.” It’s about unleashing creativity, innovation, and better, more progressive judging that not only will make the original “EOIR vision” a reality but will lead to long overdue improvements in the Article III Judiciary and throughout the American justice system! If there is anything the last four years have taught us, it’s that we can and must do better as a nation to achieve equal justice under law. With better judicial leaders from the NDPA in charge, EOIR can not just be part of the solution, but can lead the way to better justice for America!
Repeat after me, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, the EOIR Clown Show has got to go!” Then, let the Biden-Harris Transition know!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesHonorable Joan Churchill Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Member Round Table of Retired JudgesHon. Cecelia M.Espenoza Former Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA Source: Denverdemocrats.orgHon. Rebecca Jamil U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) Source: Twitter
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is composed of 47 former Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals. We were appointed by and served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. We have centuries of com- bined experience adjudicating asylum applications and appeals. Our members include nation- ally-respected experts on asylum law; many regularly lecture at law schools and conferences and author articles on the topic.
Our members issued decisions encompassing wide-ranging interpretations of our asylum laws during our service on the bench. Whether or not we ultimately reached the correct result, those decisions were always exercised according to our “own understanding and conscience,”1 and not in acquiescence to the political agenda of the party or administration under which we served.
We as judges understood that whether or not we agreed with the intent of Congress, we were still bound to follow it. The same is true of the Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, and for that matter, the President.
INTRODUCTION
Initially we note that the current practice of reducing the time for notice and comment, severely undermines the ability for the public to digest and comment on rules. The reduction of time to
1 See Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 266-67 (1954). 1
30 days violates the intent of Congress to give full deliberation to regulatory changes. As experi- enced adjudicators, we are in a unique position to contextualize these changes, but even with our experience, the breadth of these proposed regulations should allow for additional time to review and comment.
Next, we note that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), contains changes that continue to diminish the role and function of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) as an independent adjudicatory body free from political pressure. For example, the granting of certification author- ity to judges who are supposed to be subject to the appellate review of the BIA, does not further the objectives of finality or due process. Further, these rules are slanted in ways that diminish actions and take away tools used by Immigration Judges and Board to manage dockets and en- sure consideration of changed circumstances that might arise for either party. Under the NPRM, the Department of Homeland Security is invited to utilize unlimited power to reopen cases for negative information, and all opportunity for respondents to obtain reopening for new infor- mation have been removed.
In our review we do not object to the clarifications and changes regarding: 1) finality; 2) the ex- pansion of the authority to grant voluntary departure to the BIA; and 3) having cases that only need security checks being placed on hold by the BIA.
However, we do object to: 1) the proposed shortened briefing schedule; 2) simultaneous briefing in non-detained cases; 3) the prohibition from receiving new evidence on appeal, remanding a case for the immigration judge to consider new evidence in the course of adjudicating an appeal, or considering a motion to remand based on new evidence; 4) the elimination of the ability of immigration judges to consider issues beyond the express scope of the remand; 5) giving Immi- gration Judges Certification Authority over BIA decisions; 5) the proposed elimination of admi- nistrative closures; 6) the proposed elimination of the delegation of sua sponte reopening author- ity; 7) removal of BIA certification authority; 8) the imposition of new deadlines and timeframes for adjudication of appeals with those failing to be adjudicated in the specified time being re- ferred to the EOIR Director for adjudication; and 9) the elimination of Immigration Judge review of transcripts.
In short, there is little in the NPRM, that furthers the interests of ensuring a fair and neutral adju- dication. We are concerned with the overall diminishment of the BIA as an appellate body.
Read the full 17-page comment with the names of all the signers here:
In August 2020, the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) proposed a new rule that would effectively eliminate administrative closure as a docket management tool for Immigration Judges. The EOIR justified this proposed rule by claiming that administrative closure has “exacerbated both the extent of the existing backlog of immigration court cases and the difficulty in addressing that backlog in a fair and timely manner.” TRAC analyzed the EOIR’s claims as well as the historical data on administrative closure from 1986, and has just published its findings in a detailed report. The link to the report is below.
TRAC’s detailed analysis of the court records on administrative closure yields four key findings. First, administrative closure has been routinely used by Immigration Judges to manage their growing caseloads as well as manage the unresolved overlapping of jurisdictions between the EOIR and other immigration agencies. From FY 1986 to 2020, 6.1 percent (or 376,439) deportation and removal cases had been administratively closed during their lifespan. Each year, between 1 percent and 30 percent of cases are administratively closed, with high percentages of administrative closures during the Reagan and Bush Administrations in the late 1980s and early 1990s and during the Obama Administration between 2012 and 2016.
Second, TRAC finds that far from contributing to the backlog, administrative closure has helped reduce the backlog. If the 292,042 cases that are currently administratively closed and not yet recalendared were brought back onto the Court’s active docket, this would suddenly increase the Court’s active workload from its current backlog at the end of July 2020 of 1,233,307 cases to 1,525,349 cases. This would produce a 24 percent jump in the court’s already clogged hearing schedules, pushing the resolution of other backlogged cases off for many additional months if not years.
Third, data from the Immigration Courts show that immigrants who obtain administrative closure are likely to have followed legal requirements and obtain lawful status. When cases were administratively closed, recalendared, and decided, most immigrants met the legal standard to remain in the country lawfully. For example, for those cases in which the government was seeking removal orders, six out of ten (60.1%) immigrants met the high legal threshold of remaining in the country. The largest proportion of these had their cases terminated since the Court ultimately found there were no longer valid grounds to deport them. Just three out of ten (30.3%) immigrants were ultimately ordered removed.
Fourth, the EOIR significantly misrepresented the data it used to justify this rule. Specifically, the agency claims to show low numbers of case completions during the Obama Administration and high numbers of case completions during the Trump Administration. In reality, the data behind this argument artificially eliminates cases that were administratively closed. Its argument also fails to recognize that average annual case completions per Immigration Judge have actually declined from 737 closures per judge to 657 per judge during the past four years, not increased, perhaps due to the changes introduced by the current Administration.
TRAC’s free web query tools which track Immigration Court proceedings have also been updated through July 2020. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools and their latest update go to:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563 trac@syr.edu https://trac.syr.edu
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
*************************************
“Significantly misrepresented” — That’s a euphamism for “blatantly lied.” Of course, that’s what the head of the regime does on life or death matters. So, I suppose we wouldn’t expect anything else from the “toadies on parade” filling out the kakistocracy.
Look, you don’t “jack” the backlog to at least twice its “pre-regime” level with twice the number of Immigration Judges without some pretty grotesque mismanagement, cover-ups, falsification of data, dishonesty, and denial of rights to migrants.
Moreover, TRAC specifically shows the “false narrative” peddled by the racists in the Trump regime that administrative closing is some type of “evasion” that is not in the public interest. As Judge Richard Leon would say “poppycock.” It’s exactly the opposite! TRAC finds that “data from the Immigration Courts show that immigrants who obtain administrative closure are likely to have followed legal requirements and obtain lawful status.”
Administrative closure is a sane, reasonable, well-established, entirely legal, and absolutely necessary procedure.Gee whiz, one of the original proponents of administrative closure and its aggressive use as a docket management tool was the late first Chief Immigration Judge William R. Robie. Chief Judge Robie was a Republican appointee during the Reagan Administration. He also was a devotee of fundamental fairness and judicial efficiency. He had led a number of professional organizations and was known and respected in the DC Legal Community as a “guru of timeliness and efficient legal administration.”
What’s abusive are the illegal tactics, lies, and mismanagement at both DOJ and DHS that have been concocted to justify racist, White Nationalist policies that do not serve the public interest!
Due Process Forever!
PWS
09-10-20
**************************
Here’s an Addendum from Margaret Stock:
From: Margaret Stock [mailto:MStock@CASCADIALAWALASKA.COM] Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 10:17 AM To: Benson, Lenni B. Cc: Immprof (immprof@lists.ucla.edu) Subject: Re: [immprof] FW: The Life and Death of Administrative Closure
The Administration is most definitely putting out misleading information (as usual). Example: one often overlooked “administrative closure” group has been members of the US military who got tossed into removal proceedings for one reason or another (usually because of a referred asylum case or failure to file an I751 or denial of an I751 by USCIS). They almost always naturalize after being put into proceedings, then reopen and terminate. Lately, they’ve had to hire a lawyer to keep showing up at master calendar hearings, usually for a couple of years. The judges can’t hear the case because they’ve got naturalization applications pending. But the judges have to keep wasting docket time on them because there’s no such thing as admin closure anymore. It’s foolish and costly for the service members.
Washington, DC – Today, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published a sweeping proposed rule in the Federal Register that would overhaul Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) processes and remove due process safeguards with an aim of fast-tracking deportations. The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed rule.
AILA’s Senior Policy Counsel, Laura Lynch, stated, “The proposal gives the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) extraordinary adjudicatory power over appeals, authorizing him to reverse, singlehandedly, BIA decisions at the request of immigration judges. Putting this much power in the hands of an administrator who is not even a judge will give the Trump administration unprecedented ability to manipulate the courts in furtherance of its deportation agenda. The need for independent immigration courts has never been more urgent, or clear. This exemplifies why AILA is calling on Congress to pass legislation creating an immigration court system separate and independent from DOJ.”
AILA’s First Vice President, Jeremy McKinney, added, “The realities of this proposed rule are grim—more power entrusted to a hand-selected bureaucrat, increased pressure for speedy decisions at the cost of due process, and a dismantling of an appeals process vital to a fair day in court. Deeply troubling is the rule’s codification of the prohibition former Attorney General Jeff Sessions tried to impose on judges’ ability to administratively close cases, a fundamental authority judges need to efficiently manage their overloaded dockets. At least two circuit courts have rejected Sessions’ analysis and overturned the decision. The proposed rule is part of a larger effort by the DOJ to exert improper political influence over immigration court decisions and to turn the immigration courts into an enforcement mechanism. It’s a power grab, pure and simple.”
###
The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members.
Laura A. Lynch, Esq.
Senior Policy Counsel
***************
Thanks, Laura, for all that you and AILA do to fight for equal justice for all and to combat the evil influence of Billy the Bigot and his toadies over at EOIR!
Litigate, litigate, litigate! Force the Article IIIs to confront on a mass basis the human carnage, overt xenophobia, mockery of justice, and racism that they have fostered with their timid and indolent approach to the massive assault on our justice system and human dignity from Billy the Bigot and the White Nationalist regime! Make a record for future generations to see who stepped up, who chickened out, and what kind of individuals hid behind their black robes while humanity suffered and the lives of some of the most vulnerable were unlawfully and unethically destroyed.
There is no excuse for the continued, unconstitutional EOIR abomination! Past time for the Article IIIs to call halt to this perverted charade and transfer all immigration hearings to U.S. Magistrate Judges until Congress and the Executive create a new, independent, constitutionally compliant Immigration Court!
WARNING: Any resemblance to a court of law or part of the justice system contained in the document at the link is purely coincidental.
****************************
The short-term solution is actually simple: The Article IIIs need to strike this system down as a patently ridiculous denial of 5th Amendment Due Process. All immigration proceedings should be conducted de novo before U.S. Magistrate Judges, with review by District Judges and Circuit Courts, until Congress acts to establish an Immigration Court System that complies with our Constitution!
