"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.
The Biden Administration thinks carrying out his policies is A-OK. Many of those who,helped put them in office disagree. Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
WASHINGTON — The Biden administration will expand its use of a public health rule to start expelling to Mexico thousands of Venezuelans who illegally cross the U.S. border and announced a new humanitarian parole program to provide a narrow legal pathway to the United States for up to 24,000 Venezuelans.
The administration hopes that Venezuelans will apply for the parole plan remotely and fly to the United States rather than making the dangerous trek to the southwest border.
But the reliance on a Trump-era pandemic rule to deny entry to many others crystallized the Biden administration’s balancing act in both helping refugees and tightening border restrictions in the face of Republican attacks on President Biden’s immigration policy and record numbers of illegal border crossings. And there is no guarantee that just 27 days before the midterm elections, it will have the desired effect.
Until now, the majority of Venezuelans who crossed into the United States have not been expelled under the public health authority, known as Title 42. Instead, they were screened and released into the country temporarily to face removal proceedings in immigration court, where they have the option to apply for asylum.
. . . .
****************
In addition to being cruel and illegal, the new policy won’t please anyone on the immigration issue. Biden is selling his erstwhile supporters “down the river,” while neither mollifying critics on the right nor winning over independents.
Expect refugees to suffer and die. I also predict that extralegal entries aiming for “do it yourself” refuge in the interior will increase. And, our immigration and asylum systems will remain a dysfunctional mess.
In 1984, the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington announced the standard for determining when the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires the overturning of a criminal conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Strickland involved a death penalty case; on its winding path to the Supreme Court, a circuit court panel found in the defendant’s favor. That ruling was later overturned; the defendant was executed two months after the Supreme Court’s decision established a standard that the defendant could not satisfy.
A commentator writing years later could find no record of a malpractice claim or disciplinary complaint of any type having been filed against the attorney impugned in that case.2 The commentator cited this example in making the point that attorneys who are found to be Constitutionally deficient in criminal defense cases very rarely face disciplinary complaints.3 And the standard for establishing ineffective assistance laid out in Strickland does not require the filing of any such complaint.4
By contrast, the requirements for claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings were set forth by the Board of Immigration Appeals in its 1988 decision Matter of Lozada.5 As immigration proceedings are civil in nature, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was found not to apply; the Board determined that a right to counsel in the removal context “is grounded in the fifth amendment guarantee of due process.”6The BIA thus created its own standard in Lozada that requires (1) filing an affidavit attesting to the relevant facts; (2) informing prior counsel of the allegations, and providing any response received; and (3) if claiming “a violation of ethical or legal responsibilities” by prior counsel, indicating “whether a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities regarding such representation, and if not, why not.”7
A practice advisory of the American Immigration Council points out that requirement number three “on its face…does not require filing a bar complaint in all circumstances.”8 The AIC advisory cites circuit decisions excusing the filing of disciplinary complaints, including Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 156-57 (3d Cir. 2007) (allowing no bar complaint “where counsel acknowledged the ineffectiveness and made every effort to remedy the situation”), and Correa-Rivera v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that Lozada only requires an explanation of whether a bar complaint was submitted, not proof that the complaint was filed).9
Nevertheless, a 1996 BIA precedent, Matter of Rivera,10 underscores the risk of not filing a bar complaint. In that case, the requirements of Lozada were satisfied. As to the third requirement, new counsel indicated that a disciplinary complaint was not filed against prior counsel because “if any error was made in this case it was a postal error or an error of inadvertence by [former counsel].”11 Although this explanation accorded with Lozada, as it was explained both whether a bar complaint was filed and why, the Board rejected the explanation as insufficient.
The majority opinion in Rivera went on to provide a list of reasons why it considered “[t]he requirement of a bar complaint” important in ineffective assistance claims. A dissenting opinion written by then-BIA chair Paul Schmidt addressed the issue far more sensibly:
I do not need a Lozada motion or a state bar complaint to find that ineffective assistance has occurred here. The respondent’s affidavit and that of former counsel are sufficient to establish that former counsel’s duties to the respondent were not properly discharged. There is no hint of collusion between former counsel and the respondent. Under these circumstances, I see no basis for making the filing of a state bar complaint the determinative factor…12
Thus, in Rivera (and in a subsequent precedent, Matter of Assaad,13 the Board reframed the need to file a disciplinary complaint as a categorical requirement under Lozada. But in its circumstance-specific approach, Judge Schmidt’s dissent raised the question of whether this requirement is really necessary.
Nearly six years after Rivera, the answer to that question came from an unlikely source. Matter of Lozada was briefly vacated in the final days of the Bush Administration by then Attorney General Michael Mukasey.14His decision reframed ineffective assistance claims from a due process right into a discretionary agency action, and in doing so, created a new, tougher standard for establishing ineffective assistance that far fewer respondents would be able to satisfy. But interestingly, the A.G.’s decision felt the need to rethink the Board’s disciplinary complaint requirement:
By making the actual filing of a bar complaint a prerequisite for obtaining (or even seeking) relief, it appears that Lozada may inadvertently have contributed to the filing of many unfounded or even frivolous complaints. See, e.g., Comment filed by the Committee on Immigration & Nationality Law, Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Sept. 29, 2008), in response to the Proposed Rule for Professional Conduct for Practitioners—Rules and Procedures, and Representation and Appearances, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,178 (July 30, 2008) (“Under the Lozada Rule, an ineffective assistance of counsel charge is often required in order to reopen a case or reverse or remand an unfavorable decision. The practice of filing such claims is rampant, and places well-intentioned and competent attorneys at risk of discipline.”). Such unfounded complaints impose costs on well-intentioned and competent attorneys, and make it harder for State bars to identify meritorious complaints in order to impose sanctions on lawyers whose performance is truly deficient. The new approach is intended to avoid these problems by requiring only that the [noncitizen] submit to the Board a completed and signed but unfiled complaint…15
In light of these concerns, the new Compean standard still required the preparation of a disciplinary complaint against prior counsel, but (perhaps in a bizarre nod to Moses E. Herzog) added that the respondent “need not actually file the complaint with the appropriate State bar or disciplinary authorities, as Lozada had required.”16
Less than five months after its issuance, Compean was vacated by Mukasey’s successor, Attorney General Eric Holder, thus restoring the Lozada standard, along with its mandatory bar requirement.17 Holder’s decision further directed EOIR to draft proposed regulations on the topic for public comment “as soon as practicable.”18
When the agency finally published those proposed regulations more than seven years later, they retained Rivera’s mandatory complaint requirement.19 In its comments to the proposed rule, the American Immigration Lawyers Association opined that the mandatory complaint requirement should be eliminated, stating that “rather than centering on attorney discipline, the rules governing ineffective assistance of counsel should focus on assisting and protecting the noncitizen victim…” The comment continued that “EOIR already has ample existing procedures to police the immigration bar without requiring the filing of a formal complaint.”20As no final rule was ever published, we don’t know EOIR’s reaction to the comment.
Another six years later, the question first raised in the Rivera dissent, and to which a Bush Administration Attorney General and leading bar groups seem in agreement on the answer, remains unresolved.Recently, immigration law experts have revived the issue.21As those experts again point out, the purpose of reopening a proceeding in which attorney error occurred is to remedy a harm that was beyond the respondent’s ability to control. The focus on correcting the harm (as opposed to punishing the lawyer) is why in the criminal context bar complaints rarely if ever accompany ineffective assistance claims. The lack of sucha requirement allows attorneys to admit to their occasional errors without fear of retribution.
In its unique approach to the contrary, the BIA discourages attorneys from being forthcoming about their errors, and further forces counsel to turn on their own colleagues for acts that would not warrant the extreme action of a bar complaint in any other context. It seems remarkable that even an Attorney General decision issued during the Bush Administration acknowledged that most bar complaints filed pursuant to Lozada are “unfounded” and “impose costs on well-intentioned and competent attorneys,” while also hampering state bars from identifying and disciplining genuine incidents of malpractice.
According to one proponent of amending the standard, attorney Rekha Sharma Crawford, the current Lozada requirement pits members of the private bar against one another in a very destructive way, and adds unnecessary stress on the immigration removal defense counsel who are often at the forefront of these claims-many which are meaningless and done only to comply with Lozada.22
Hopefully, this will be the year that the agency finally gets around to resolving this issue by removing the mandatory complaint requirement of Lozada, and thus bringing the standard in immigration proceedings into alignment with those required in other civil and criminal courts and tribunals.
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase.All rights reserved.
Notes:
466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Joseph H. Ricks, Raising the Bar: Establishing an Effective Remedy against Ineffective Counsel, 2015 BYU L. Rev. 1115, 1120 (2016).
Id.
The Strickland standard requires a finding that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there was a reasonable probability that the result would have been different if not for counsel’s inadequate performance.
12.Id. at 608. It bears noting that Judge Schmidt, and two of the three Board Members who joined in his dissent (Lory Rosenberg and Gustavo Villageliu) are presently members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges.
20.Comment filed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (Sept. 26, 2016), in response to the Proposed Rule for Motions Reopen Removal, Deportation, or Exclusion Proceedings Based Upon a Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, 81 Fed. Reg. 145 (July 28, 2016).
21.See, e.g., an October 3 AILA Roundtable, “Changing the Bench: A New Narrative on Lozada and Bar Complaints.”
22.Private email to the author.
*****************************
Republished by permission.
As “Sir Jeffrey points out,” in Matter of Compean, Bangaly, & J-E-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. June 3, 2009), AG Eric Holder directed EOIR to promulgate new regulations providing guidance on ineffective assistance of counsel. More than seven years later, in 2016 — essentially the entire Obama Administration — DOJ/EOIR issued flawed “proposed” regulations. Not surprisingly, no final regulations were ever issued. A dozen yers after the AG directed EOIR to take action — a big “nothingburger.”
This by no means is the only example of EOIR/DOJ’s unsuitability to the task facing it. It’s reminiscent of the tortured history of the “gender based asylum” regulations ordered by former AG, the late Janet Reno, but issued only as a badly flawed proposal and never finalized.
Additionally, incoming President Joe Biden made issuing “gender based regulations” one of his Administration’s highest priorities, ordering action by October 2021. A year later — nothing!
Meanwhile, EOIR Judges’ applications and interpretations of the governing precedent on gender-based asylum — Matter of A-R-G-G- — are wildly inconsistent. Beyond that, the 5th Circuit has taken the right-wing misogynistic “liberty” of simply ignoring the law on gender-based asylum.
“Lozada reform” is long overdue. But, so is meaningful EOIR reform!
Ultimately, America needs and deserves an independent U.S. Immigration Court with exceptionally well-qualified judges, at all levels, who are recognized experts in asylum law and unswervingly committed to due process and best judicial practices.
Until then, those appearing in Immigration Court — disproportionately individuals of color and women — and their hard-working attorneys — will continue to receive grossly substandard “justice” from “Justice!”
Border enforcement once again dominates contemporary immigration law debates. Yet many legal practices commonly linked to border control—including policing, relocation, and exclusion—actually have little to do with immigration enforcement. Instead, immigration control provides a justification for surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties deep inside the United States. For instance, the governor of Texas issued an executive order this June, asserting the legal authority to arrest people suspected of unlawfully crossing the border or committing “other violations of federal law.” This executive order is framed as being about expanding the pipeline to deportation and, in particular, shoring up federal efforts to promote border security. Yet the reach of the order goes well beyond issues relating to deportation. It raises the central questions: Who decides who appears to be present in the United States without lawful immigration status, and on what basis?
More recently, certain lawmakers have employed the rhetoric of border control to justify busing or flying migrants to locations inside the United States. Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) tweeted at the time: “We’re sending migrants to [Vice President Kamala Harris’s] backyard to call on the Biden Administration to do its job & secure the border.” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) employed similar rhetoric to justify sending approximately 50 adults and children to Martha’s Vineyard without any apparent prior notice. This relocation may have violated criminal laws. The individuals who were relocated may have been given false information to induce them to board planes. Lawmakers who frame these relocations as a means of border control make the unjustified assumption that the targeted individuals had no claims to remain in the United States. This approach not only ignores laws permitting people to seek asylum but also treats certain U.S. residents as lacking basic civil liberties inside the United States. When government officials claim the ability to lure people from one state to another on false pretenses, they also claim virtually unlimited power to intrude on individual liberty in stated service of immigration control.
. . . .
In a variety of settings, ranging from politically motivated relocations of migrant communities to jailhouse immigration screenings, lawmakers present actions that curtail civil liberties as related to deportation. But a deportation-centric perspective, which centers whether and how certain practices might lead to removal, offers too limited a lens to understand the reach and impact of enforcement practices done in stated service of immigration control. It ignores the full costs of enforcement, including unjustified surveillance and policing. Rather than protecting the polity from a foreign threat, government actions purportedly aimed at immigration control undermine core liberties that ought to be protected within the American political community. If the ultimate aim of immigration law is to create an integrated political community, then we need to consider how law could operate to promote integration and inclusion, rather than treating all enforcement actions as a means to deportation.
******************************
Read the complete article of the link.
This is why it’s such a disgraceful mistake for Garland and the Biden Administration to allow the racially-charged, anti-due-process travesty at EOIR to continue, largely unabated!The misguided idea that migrants are not “real persons” under the Constitution — and to a large extent the related view that their lawyers aren’t entitled to the common professional treatment and courtesies extended in most other parts of our legal system — definitely has“carryover” into the dehumanization of various categories of the “other” and ignoring the compelling evidence of abuse amassed by those lawyers working to keep the system honest.
For example, the Supreme’s dismissive treatment of women’s rights and humanity is definitely related to the degrading treatment of women’s claims in Immigration Court — an overt misogyny encouraged by Sessions, Miller, and their nativist acolytes!That Democrats as a whole have failed to “pick up” on the serious attacks on equal justice and due process in Immigration Courts and their carryover effect to other parts of our legal system is a bad sign for the future of American democracy. Once a “person” is treated as “less than a full person” under the Constitution, there is no limit to who can become a “legal nonperson.”
Many immigration issues are divisive. Protecting dreamers is not. Virtually every poll conducted on the subject finds that Americans of all political persuasions favor granting dreamers some form of permanent legal status, including a path to citizenship. Even Trumpers are on board, surveys show. Faith groups, law enforcement officials, employers, national security experts and other major constituencies besides typical bleeding-heart immigration advocates have urged Congress repeatedly to grant these young immigrants greater legal certainty.
Unfortunately — as is the case on so many issues — Congress has abdicated its responsibility to act. Instead, the executive branch has been tasked with devising temporary workarounds.
In 2012, the Obama administration announced a sort of Band-Aid solution, known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA offers some of these young immigrants access to (temporary) work permits and protections from deportation, which must be frequently renewed. Eligibility extends only to those who meet certain age and educational requirements, have lived here continuously since 2007 and pose no threat to public safety, among other conditions.
This program was generally expected to be a stopgap while Congress worked on broader immigration reforms or at least a pathway to citizenship for dreamers; so far, neither has materialized.
[As DACA immigrant program turns 10, legal challenges persist]
In the decade since it was introduced, DACA has weathered multiple legal challenges — including from a coalition of red states led by Texas, as well as attempted repeal by President Donald Trump. For now, the program remains mostly intact while the red-state challenge wends its way through the courts. But DACA’s days look numbered.
. . . .
This is hardly the only immigration issue on which Republican politicians have complained about executive overreach yet been reluctant to exercise their own powers. Other vulnerable, sympathetic populations of immigrants — such as the Afghan allies who were temporarily “paroled” into the United States — are stuck in their own legal limbo unless and until Congress acts.
But it’s always easier for politicians to grandstand over everyone else’s immigration policy choices than to produce solutions of their own.
**********************
Read Catherine’s complete article at the link.
How stupid and cruel is the GOP’s assault on Dreamers? It’s not like most “Dreamers” are going anywhere. After all, there are already about 2 million individuals (not to mention family members, employers, etc.) backed up on Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts. And, under Garland’s misguided leadership, more judges are actually building more backlog!
But, without DACA’s work authorization, those not eligible for other forms of relief (e.g., asylum, cancellation of removal) will lose their authorization to work. Since many are in critical or essential jobs with employers who can’t afford to be out of compliance with Federal laws, it’s reasonable to assume that Dreamers would lose those jobs. That means that many will have to take lesser jobs in the substantial “underground economy” operating in the U.S., largely as a result of the GOP’s obstinance on sensible immigration policy.
If that appears stupid, it’s because it is! But, what else is new with the GOP’s cruel, xenophobic, and unrealistic approach to immigration.
It’s remarkable that out of touch righty judges on the 5th Circuit, whose jobs and existence actually depend on the systemic non-prosecution of most Federal offenses, would actually have the gall to issue their off the wall ruling dumping on Dreamers! In reality, by necessity, only a small number of violations of Federal statutes are prosecuted. See. e,g., https://prisonprofessors.com/federal-crimes-to-prosecute-or-not/.
The Fifth Circuit’s “off the wall” apparent theory that Federal officials lack discretion to redirect prosecution resources toward the most serious offenders is pure “Federalist Society political poppycock!” It’s particularly out of bounds to critique the Feds for taking steps to insure that such discretion is exercised uniformly and reasonably, rather than arbitrarily and capriciously.
I had lots of experience with “PD” programs over four decades in Federal service. The DACA program is far and away the premier “model” program for the effective and rational exercise of PD.
The major impediment to the rational immigration law and policy adjustments America needs is today’s nativist-driven GOP. Unless and until enough American voters wise up and throw the GOP out at all levels, America will not achieve it’s full potential!
Migrants Are Leading Clean-up Efforts in Florida, Despite DeSantis’ Crusade Against Them
Migrant workers are flooding-in to help Florida rebuild after Hurricane Ian, even as Governor Ron DeSantis wages a crusade against them.
CIARA NUGENT
Three days after Hurricane Ian made landfall in Florida on Sept. 28 as a Category 4 storm, Johnny Aburto arrived in Port Charlotte, a mostly white community of 64,000, popular with retirees, on the state’s southwestern coast. The town suffered extensive damage during the storm: roofs blown off, homes flooded, power lines downed. There is a lot of work to be done.
Aburto, 42, is here to do it. Originally from Nicaragua, he is part of a large, informal, overwhelmingly immigrant workforce that travels the U.S. cleaning up after increasingly frequent climate-related disasters. Once a hurricane hits, these crews are bussed in by contractors desperate for workers, or they drive to the area themselves and wait in Walmart or Home Depot parking lots to be picked up for a day’s work. Aburto, a skilled laborer, was in New Orleans after Katrina in 2005, Baton Rouge after Louisiana’s floods in 2016, Panama City Beach after Michael in 2018, and Lake Charles after Laura in 2020. “These kinds of events really affect people,” he says. “We do our bit to help them.”
In Port Charlotte, Aburto is now busy covering roofs with tarpaulins—a crucial first step to keep homes safe from future rain, so that power can be restored and residents can come back. He’s also cleaning out soaked debris from interiors. When that kind of work is done, he says, many of his colleagues will stay on to make more permanent repairs.
. . . .
*****************
Read the complete article at the link.
Sadly, America has a long disreputable history of denying the humanity and rights of those whose labor and skills built our nation and made it great. African Americans,Chinese-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Filipino-Americans, Haitian-Americans, and many others have all felt the sting of racism, demonizing myths, dehumanization, exploitation, and grotesque ingratitude.
I happen to be reading UVA Professor Amanda Frost’s outstanding book on “citizenship stripping.” I was struck by this quote about the exploitation of Mexican workers during the “Bracero Program” which was followed by “Operation Wetback” — the Eisenhower Administration’s totally illegal mass removal of Mexicans, including lawful immigrants and U.S. citizens!
“As one grower put it, “We used to own our slaves. Now we just rent them.” 51”
— You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers by Amanda Frost
https://a.co/0BsTPuZ
Amanda Frost Professor UVA Law Author, “You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers “ PHOTO: UVA Law
It would be nice to think this time will be different — that we have advanced as a nation. But, I wouldn’t bank on it!
Floridians have a golden opportunity to replace DeSantis with a real Governor, Charlie Crist, who would serve all people, use government resources prudently, and govern in the public interest. Polls, however, say that such a “Florida epiphany” is unlikely. But, it’s still possible.
Garland’s “vision of justice” for asylum seekers and other migrants at EOIR leaves something to be desired:
Folks with wrong-headed “take no prisoners” views on asylum law were “rewarded” with “ judgeships” at both the trial and appellate levels of EOIR under the Trump Administration. Many continue to serve and discriminate against legitimate asylum seekers under Garland. Just check out the number of “sitting IJ’s” with outrageously high “asylum denial rates” near or in excess of 90%, according to TRAC Immigration. Why haven’t these important, non-life-tenured positions been “merit re-competed” to place the “best, brightest, and most qualified” on the Immigration Bench? Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsJaundiced attitudes about women (particularly those of color) and gender-based asylum claims among EOIR judges have neither been “rooted out” nor effectively addressed by Garland. As we can see, de-humanization of women and stripping them of dignity under asylum laws carries over into other legal arenas! Targeted, endemic. societal persecution of women is often intentionally minimized and mis-characterized as “random violence,” “personal disputes,” “mere jealousy,” or “not that serious” in Immigration Court! “Fictionalized accounts” of the ability of abused women to seek protection from authorities in countries where femicide and rape are rampant are sometimes employed to deny legitimate asylum claims in Garland’s broken courts. Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsWrong , “unduly restrictive,” asylum precedents and discredited methods (“Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — on steroids under Garland — is a key example) continue to harm asylum seekers in Garland’s dysfunctional “courts.” — Public Realm
on WANTED: Examples of racism and other bias in US immigration court
. . . .
The nation’s Immigration Courts have—thus far—flown under the public’s radar screen. Yet these are the places where life-or-death decisions are made, often for subjective and even racist reasons. That is why the Ohio Immigrant Alliance is collecting examples of racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, and other biased statements and decisions made by Immigration Judges from across the country. We are working with a research team to analyze the cases and produce a report in early 2023. Here are a few examples.
Contact Lauren Hamlett (hamlett.15 AT buckeyemail.osu.edu) for more information or to share examples. This can be in the form of court documents and judges’ decisions or an interview with an immigrant or attorney. We will adhere to all privacy requirements requested by the immigrant and not publish anything without their consent.
The report, to be published in 2023, will shine a light on how racism shows up in Immigration Court using real-life examples. These findings will enrage anyone who believes the U.S. should work toward becoming a nation that guarantees “justice for all.”
See this testimony for more information, and contact Lauren to share your experiences.
*******************
I was struck by the undeniable truth — scandalously ignored by Garland, his lieutenants, and Biden Administration policy officials — contained in the January 20, 2022 statement by Lynn Tramonte, Ohio Immigrant Alliance, to the House Judiciary Committee considering the need for an independent, professionally-administered, merit-based Immigration Court.
The U.S. Is Deporting People Who Qualify for Asylum
The current U.S. immigration system is not designed to function fairly, but to fail. There are many examples of this, but today I will focus on examples from the U.S. Immigration Court.
Lynn’s full statement is available at the “this testimony” link above. I’ve made this point over and over!
Because the current system is purposely biased against asylum seekers, particularly those of color arriving at our Southern border, the “statistics” purportedly showing that few will qualify for asylum are totally bogus! Then, they are inexcusably cited by so-called “mainstream media” who haven’t done their homework! This perpetuates the “nativist myth” of the “illegitimate asylum seeker” which is then used to dehumanize refugees and deny them their legal and human rights!
Fact is, because we don’t have a legitimate, expert asylum adjudication system, we don’t really know how many qualified refugees are being illegally turned away or denied. But, it’s a safe bet that a fair, expert, professionally administered asylum system would grant legal protection to many more — probably a majority — of those who pass credible fear!
The problem is NOT, as Sessions and other nativists claimed, that too many individuals pass “credible fear.” It’s that a biased, anti-asylum, mal-administered, and constitutionally flawed system wrongfully denies far, far, far too many legitimate claims! And, Garland’s incredibly dysfunctional EOIR is at the heart of this problem!
Fixing EOIR is an essential first step in “re-legitimizing” our entire floundering justice system. But, Garland isn’t up to the job!
Asylum is an important form of legal immigration and an opportunity for America to put its best foot forward by properly, fairly, and timely screening and admitting those who can qualify for refuge and will be key contributors to our nation’s future. The babble of GOP nativists like DeSantis, Cruz, Abbott, and others about “illegals” is total BS!
It’s an ongoing national disgrace that Garland has failed to reform his Immigration Courts, eliminate bias and invidious discrimination from his judiciary, install quality, expertise, and professionalism, and insist that the Biden Administration abandon “Miller Lite,” nativist policies and mis-interpretations of the law that are diminishing our nation and endangering our future; that he also has ridiculously chosen to “go to war” with experts, NGOs, attorneys, and others seeking to change and improve his disgraceful mess at EOIR!
What’s the purpose and function of an Attorney General who operates broken and biased “courts,” defends the indefensible, and refuses to stand up for the fair application of the law to some of the most vulnerable among us?
In the meantime, submit your “real life” examples of what really happens to vulnerable humans in “America’s worst courts” to Ohio Immigrant Alliance at the above link.
The wheels are off and the wagon rotting away at EOIR! PHOTO: Creative CommonsAlfred E. Neumann has been “reborn” as Judge “Teflon” Merrick Garland! “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
The undersigned 106 legal service providers, court observers, and allied organizations located in the cities where the Dedicated Docket now operates. Together, we have observed hundreds of cases on the Dedicated Docket throughout the country. Our collective experience reveals a process rife with unfairness: lack of legal representation, expedited and arbitrary timelines, removal orders against pro se respondents (including young children), as well as courts marked by confusion and in some cases hostility.
What’s going on here!? As due process and equal justice are trashed, and lives and futures endangered, some of the best legal minds in America are forced to spend time pointing out the obvious to our “disconnected from reality” AG! What a waste!
This inexcusable disaster was totally predictable in advance! NO expert recommended this stupid, “sure to fail” “haste makes waste” approach to asylum in a faux “court system” already reeling from bias, management incompetence, hostility to due process, worst practices, far too many poorly qualified judges (some selected by Sessions and Barr for their perceived willingness to “railroad” asylum seekers), a notoriously anti-asylum appeals board, and rock bottom morale! Yet, Garland went ahead!
And NOBODY among his subordinates — not DAG Lisa Monaco, not AAG Vanita Gupta, not AAG/Civil Rights Kristen Clarke, not SG Elizabeth Prolager— at the DOJ had the guts to stand up and JUST SAY NO to his life-threatening nonsense. They all share the blame for this completely avoidable blot on our justice system and on their records (something progressives should remember when these irresponsible folks show up looking for jobs someday, as they inevitably will).What a disgrace! It didn’t have to be this way!
Why isn’t practice before the Immigration Courts and demonstrated commitment to human rights and due process a MINIMUM requirement for being the Attorney General or a top DOJ official in a Democratic Administration? No more “ivory tower” “tone deaf” appointments to key justice jobs from Democrats! End the deadly, wasteful nonsense! How many more innocents will be abused and systemically denied fundamental justice by EOIR before Biden and Harris pay attention to what’s happening “on their watch?”
And, folks, don’t forget the almost unfathomable “system costs” of having the knowledge, creativity, energy, and resources of these 106 organizations tied up in resisting and publicizing Garland’s stupidity and disdain by for equal justice and racial justice in America! They should be running EOIR, issuing great precedents on the BIA, solving problems in a practical, humane, legal manner as Immigration Judges, and redoing the broken and dysfunctional administrative system at EOIR.
The knowledge, personnel, creativity, and courage to establish a “model due process court system” are available “out here” — in spades. Instead, this avoidable human rights and racial injustice disaster is inflicted on our nation and some of the must vulnerable therein, by a tone-deaf Democratic Administration unwilling or unable to live up to their campaign promises! Disgusting! 🤮
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
NPR: This has been the deadliest year ever for migrants trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border. More than 800 migrants have died border-wide in the fiscal year that ends this week, according to internal government figures shared by a senior Border Patrol official.
NYT: For now, the changes are tiny; only 99 people since the end of May have completed what are called asylum merits interviews with an asylum officer and been fully evaluated under the new rules. Of those, 24 have been granted asylum, while most of the rest have had their cases sent back to the immigration court system for an appeal.
NYT: The decision to leave the cap at 125,000 was a contrast with the Trump administration, which severely restricted entry, but advocacy groups said migrants were still processed too slowly.
CNN: National security adviser Jake Sullivan and homeland security adviser Liz Sherwood-Randall, among other White House officials, met with the representatives of 19 countries at the White House to iron out the implementation of that declaration and appoint a special coordinator for each country, according to the senior administration official.
Intercept: The Warden of what was once one of the nation’s most notorious immigration detention facilities was arrested this week after allegedly killing one migrant and wounding another in the desert of rural West Texas.
Forbes: Compelling new research finds immigrants, including those with less than a high school degree, provide enormous fiscal benefits and a significant subsidy to U.S. taxpayers.
Reuters: In the first eight months of 2022, Royal Canadian Mounted Police intercepted 23,358 asylum-seekers crossing into the country at unofficial entry points, 13% more than all of 2017, when an influx of border-crossers at Roxham Road, near the Quebec-New York border, made international headlines.
Politico: Because cannabis remains illegal at a federal level, all employers — even those licensed at the state level — lack access to E-Verify, a government service that helps businesses verify immigration status. They also cannot use visa programs like H-2A and H-2B, which facilitate legal immigration of farmworkers in other industries… The Oregon legislature in the last 12 months set aside more than $31 million for law enforcement and advocacy groups working to combat illicit cannabis cultivation and help undocumented workers in the industry.
NPR: What is the connection between climate change, the movement of people around the globe, and the rise of xenophobic politicians? That’s the overarching question we’re hoping to answer with this reporting trip.
Law360: The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review whether the Fifth Circuit was right to reject a Guatemalan woman’s deportation case on the grounds that she hadn’t gone through a final round of administrative appeals.
Law360: The Third Circuit has affirmed an Eastern District of Pennsylvania federal judge’s rejection of a Dominican Republic citizen’s appeal of his conviction on firearm and immigration law offenses — albeit for different reasons than the lower court.
Law360: The State Department will not have to schedule visa interviews for 12 winners of the 2022 Diversity Visa Lottery, after a D.C. federal judge found that the selectees didn’t show a high likelihood of proving that the Biden administration unlawfully delayed their interviews.
Law360: An Ohio federal judge on Wednesday said the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals wrongly tossed a woman’s visa petition for her Ghanian husband over a previous “sham marriage,” saying whether the prior marriage was actually fake was open to dispute.
Law360: The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday hit the U.S. Department of Homeland Security with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in D.C. federal court, accusing the agency of improperly withholding access to records regarding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees’ access to counsel.
AP: The request comes in a lawsuit filed by migrants seeking compensation from the government after thousands of children were taken from parents in a policy maligned as inhumane by political and religious leaders around the world. Settlement talks with attorneys and the government broke down late last year.
AP: A companion complaint Wednesday to the office of civil rights at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security documents retaliation, including restrictions on access to legal representation and a falsified accusation of misconduct against an immigrant under the Prison Rape Elimination Act.
Reuters: Two U.S. government employees said they experienced retaliation after they sounded alarms about the conditions at Fort Bliss, which has been used for emergency housing since March 2021, according to the report issued by the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) inspector general’s office.
USCIS: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today announced an extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Burma for an additional 18 months, from Nov. 26, 2022, through May 25, 2024, due to extraordinary and temporary conditions in Burma that prevent individuals from safely returning.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
Despite disingenuous claims otherwise, the overhyped “launch” of asylum “reform” has been a “dud” — producing little for the Administration but even less for legitimate refugees and due process advocates caught up in the mind-boggling dysfunction of the failed Mayorkas/Garland asylum system. PHOTO: NASA/Joel Kowsky Public Realm
As border deaths continue to soar, nativist GOP Governors use humans as political pawns, and conditions in refugee sending countries deteriorate, the Biden Administration’s failed human rights/racial justice bureaucracy has no answers!
By attempting to replicate, remarkably even touting, the unrealistically high denial rates produced by the previous system — too often the result of badly flawed adjudications, poorly trained officers and judges, lack of effective representation, chronic systemic anti-asylum bias, and overly restrictive, anti-asylum precedents produced by a BIA loaded with anti-asylum zealots by the Trump Administration — Mayorkas and Garland have basically guaranteed continuing human rights abuses and defective adjudication of claims.
Truth is, even during the height of the overt anti-asylum program of the Trump Administration, approximately 70% of those whose claims were “referred” by the Asylum Office were eventually granted protection in Immigration Court.
According to Human Rights First (“HRF”), an international human rights organization, in Fiscal Year 2021, 68% of asylum cases referred to immigration court by the AO were subsequently granted protection.[1] With nearly 70% of claims being granted in FY2021, this represents a clear and apparent waste of judicial resources.
And, this was with a legal system with overly restrictive precedents that clearly and improperly manipulated generous asylum laws AGAINST refugees, often hindered effective representation, and was “overseen” by many Immigration Judges who were hand-selected or retained by the Trump DOJ because they were “programmed to deny” asylum at outrageous rates. By granting only a pathetic 24 of 99 cases that actually were decided over four months, and “referring” the rest to Garland’s beyond dysfunctional “courts” (currently fighting an indescribably stupid all-out “war” with NGOs and pro bono attorneys), Mayorkas hasn’t come anywhere close to “leveraging” the system to locate, prioritize, timely grant many more legitimate cases, and drastically reduce the huge number of unnecessary referrals to EOIR.
Rather than “cleaning house” at USCIS and EOIR, bringing in dynamic, qualified leaders, expert adjudicators and judges who can timely recognize the many legitimate claims, working with NGOs and pro bono groups to get all asylum seekers represented, and utilizing the expert training resources that currently exist outside Government, Mayorkas and Garland are perpetrating the same anti-asylum myths spewed out by Miller, Trump, and company! Essentially, instead of fixing the fatal flaws in the current system, the Biden Administration has chosen to institutionalize and expedite them! That’s insane!
The Biden Administration’s failure to do the butt-kicking, bold, thoughtful work necessary to establish robust, timely, efficient, refugee and asylum systems is dragging down our legal system, promoting racial injustice, perpetrating xenophobic myths, advancing “worst practices,” harming, sometimes killing, legitimate refugees fleeing repressive regimes, and denying American communities legal residents who could be using their skills to help build a stronger economy and a better future for America.
With thousands of asylum seekers from countries where persecution is well-documented being “orbited” by nativist GOP Governors, the Biden Administration was presented with a golden opportunity to work with NGOs, states, and local governments to coordinate resettlement, get them competently represented, and grant asylum in a fair and timely manner, thus demonstrating how an improved asylum system could work with proper staffing, attitudes, and legal guidance. Instead, the Administration has chosen to waste time on a “thudding dud” of a pilot that shows a stunning lack of leadership, courage, imagination, initiative, humanity, and respect for the rule of law!
Professor Philip G. Schrag Georgetown Law Co-Director, CALS Asylum ClinicProfessor from Practice; Director, Human Rights Institute; Director, Center for Applied Legal Studies PHOTO: GeorgetownLawProfessor Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs I. Herman Stern Research Professor Temple Law PHOTO: Temple Law
Here’s the abstract of the latest “practical scholarship” from the RR3:Professors Phil Schrag, Andy Schoenholtz, and Jaya Ramji-Nogles, “The New Border Asylum Adjudication System: Speed, Fairness, and the Representation Problem,” which will appear in the Howard Law Journal:
The New Border Asylum Adjudication System: Speed, Fairness, and the Representation Problem
In 2022, the Biden administration implemented what the New York Times has described as potentially “the most sweeping change to the asylum process in a quarter-century.” This new adjudication system creates unrealistically short deadlines for asylum seekers who arrive over the southern border, the vast majority of whom are people of color. Rather than providing a fair opportunity for those seeking safety to explain and corroborate their persecution claims, the new system imposes unreasonably speedy time frames to enable swift adjudications. Asylum seekers must obtain representation very quickly even though the government does not fund counsel and not enough lawyers offer free or low-cost representation. Moreover, the immigration statute requires that asylum seekers must corroborate their claims with extrinsic evidence if the adjudicator thinks that such evidence is available – a nearly impossible task in the time frames provided by the new rule. As a result, the new rule clashes with every state’s Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 and 1.3, imposing duties of competence and diligence in every case that a lawyer undertakes. It will be extremely difficult for lawyers to provide competent and diligent representation under the new, excessively short deadlines. For immigration lawyers, the new rule exacerbates a challenge that they share with public defenders and other lawyers working within dysfunctional systems: how to provide even the most basic level of procedural due process for their clients, most of whom are people of color.
This article begins by describing the regular asylum process. It then summarizes the history of expedited removal, a screening system that limits access to that process for asylum seekers who arrive at the southern U.S. border without visas. It then explains and assesses the Biden administration’s first and second versions of the new asylum rule, highlighting the major flaw that will make the current version an unfairly formidable hurdle for asylum seekers subject to it. The article concludes by setting out a way for the Biden administration to create a more fair, accurate and efficient border asylum adjudication system and ensure that the U.S. can comply with domestic and international refugee law.
Keywords: Asylum, Asylum adjudication, Asylum process, Expedited removal, Immigration, Legal ethics, Due process, Administrative law
JEL Classification: K39
Suggested Citation:
Schrag, Philip G. and Ramji-Nogales, Jaya and Schoenholtz, Andrew I., The New Border Asylum Adjudication System: Speed, Fairness, and the Representation Problem (September 29, 2022). Howard Law Journal, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2023, Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4233655
*********************
New regulations pasted on old anti-asylum, anti-lawyer, anti-due-process attitudes and relying on an ever more dysfunctional EOIR, now at war with the asylum bar, won’t cut it! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
You can download the complete article from SSRN at the above link.
Expect the Biden Administration to “blow off” the suggestions for improvement at the end of the article. They seem to glory in “tuning out” the views of practical experts who know how to fix the broken asylum adjudication system.
As I predicted when these regulations first came out, they were “programmed for failure.”
Due-process-denying, representation-killing, arbitrary time limits imposed from above have been tried by Administration after Administration. They have always failed and will continue to do so. So, why are they a key part of the Administration’s so-called “reforms?”
Compare the article’s discussion of the importance of representation and the practical and ethical problems caused by the new regulations with the reality of the “nutsos” ways EOIR is mis-treating attorneys currently trying to practice before the Immigration Courts!
Additionally, the unwarranted, yet largely self-fulfilling assumption by the Biden Administration that only 15% of asylum applications would be granted at the “Asylum Office stage” show why this program was designed to fail by the wrong officials. For the system to meaningfully address the Immigration Court asylum backlog, the grant rate would have to be multiples of that — probably at least 50%.
That’s a realistic projection, given the well-documented, atrocious human rights conditions in most “sending countries” and the current artificial limitations on grants imposed by bad precedents and flawed, biased, or incompetent adjudications. When I was at the Arlington Immigration Court from 2003-16, a significant majority of the “referrals” from the Asylum Office were granted asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection, often with concurrence or only token opposition by ICE. That suggests that there is a huge unrealized potential for many more timely asylum grants at the Asylum Office. But, success will never be achieved with the current “anti-asylum, afraid to correctly and fairly implement refugee law gang” in charge — committed to retaining the bad attitudes and repeating the mistakes of the past!
Hanging over the whole disaster is the “uncomfortable truth” that I’ve been shouting:
The Biden Administration is still operating EOIR and large portions of the immigration bureaucracy at DHS with Trump-era “holdovers” who were improperly “programmed to deny” asylum.
There is a dearth of positive precedents from the BIA on gender-based asylum and other types of common asylum applications at the border that are routinely and wrongfully mishandled and denied.
There are cosmic problems resulting from failure to provide qualified representation of asylum seekers at the border.
Detention continues to be misused as a “deterrent” to legal claims and “punishment” for assertingthem.
Despite “touting” a much larger refugee admissions program beyond the border, the Administration has failed to deliver a robust, realistic, refugee admissions program for Latin America and the Caribbean which would take pressure off the border.
Racism and White Nationalism continue to drive the Administration’s dramatically inconsistent approach to White refugees from Ukraine compared with refugees of color at the Southern Border.
Indeed, this entire “reform effort” is essentially “upside down.” It’s a “designed to fail” attempt to avoid the broken and malfunctioning Immigration Court system without dealing with the REAL problem: EOIR!
Without the necessary progressive personnel and structural reforms at Garland’s EOIR (“clean house” of unqualified, under-qualified, or misplaced administrators and judges from past Administrations), the cultural changes (“out with the anti-asylum, anti-immigrant, racially challenged, too often misogynistic, EOIR culture”) it would bring, and most of all, the substantive changes to align asylum law with due process, best practices, and the generous interpretations that were foreshadowed by the Refugee Act of 1`980 but have been intentionally suppressed by politicos of both parties, there will be neither justice nor stability in our asylum and immigration systems, nor will there be equal justice for all, including racial justice, in America!
Even my esteemed “RR3” friends understate the debilitating effects of the ever-worsening dysfunction at EOIR and Garland’s failure of leadership on due process and human rights!
Perhaps the most telling statement in their article is this: “Asylum officers are more highly trained in asylum adjudication than immigration judges . . . .”Why, on earth, would that be?
Why isn’t the BIA led and comprised of internationally-respected asylum experts like Schrag, Schoenholtz, Ramji-Nogales, and others like them? Why aren’t all Immigration Judges drawn from the ranks of universally-respected “practical scholars” in asylum and human rights?Plenty of them are out here! Why aren’t they on the bench? Why is the Biden Administration running a “D-Team Judiciary” at EOIR rather than “the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” as EOIR was once envisioned? What’s the excuse for lousy training at EOIR when top-flight “modulated” asylum training is available from expert sources like Professor Michele Pistone’s innovative VIISTA Villanova program? What’s the excuse for the colossal EOIR failure that threatens lives and our democracy on a daily basis? Why aren’t alarm bells going off at the White House about Garland’s failed stewardship at EOIR?
Reforming the asylum system, starting with EOIR, could also potentially have big societal and economic benefits for America. Asylees gain legal status, can work, get in line for green cards, eventually become citizens, and realize their full potential as productive members of our society. Not incidentally, they also become regular taxpayers and can help bolster essential enterprises and infrastructure improvements.
For example, just yesterday the Portland (ME) Press Herald featured an article about the critical, chronic shortage of workers in Maine. https://www.pressherald.com/2022/10/02/how-can-maine-solve-its-workforce-crisis/ Why isn’t the Biden Administration working with Maine authorities, NGOs, and economic development groups to “fast track” asylum approvals for those who might be persuaded to resettle in Maine to take advantage of these economic opportunities, for everyone’s benefit? Mainers also are suffering from a shortage of affordable housing. I’ll bet that with a little “seed money,” there are enterprising, skilled groups of potential asylees who could help build and maintain affordable housing for communities in need, in Maine and elsewhere in the U.S. Why are they instead “rotting at the border” or being aimlessly “orbited” around America by nativist GOP governors trying to score political points with their White Nationalist base?
By adopting the nativists’ dehumanizing mis-characterization of asylum seekers as a “problem” to be measured in “numbers,” deterred, and held at bay, the Administration is missing a golden opportunity to achieve some much-needed “win-wins.” Why run bone-headed “built to fail, haste makes waste” asylum pilot programs in a few cities rather than trying things that might work to everyone’s advantage, as I have described above?
At a time when many in America are finally learning the truth about our disgraceful failure to offer refuge to Jews during the period leading up to the Holocaust from the Ken Burns documentary, we (our at least some Americans) appear to be committed to making the same mistakes again. We should not undervalue the lives and contributions of refugees because of systemic or structural boas against certain groups!
Claiming to “reform” the U.S. refugee and asylum system without dealing with the ongoing, worsening, disasterous dysfunction at EOIR is a fool’s errand. The way to make the system work more efficiently is to grant the large number of deserving asylum cases in a timely, practical, manner driven by due process, best practices, and best interpretations of asylum law. Unless and until those in charge act on this truth, the awful mess at EOIR will continue to be an existential threat to democracy!
As recent polls haveshown, Americans’ confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low, which presumably has something to do with the decision by the Court’s conservatives to inflict their medieval ideas about bodily autonomy on the country and end the national right to an abortion in June. Might it also have something to do with one of the justice’s spouses reportedly attempting to overturn the 2020 election and another securing his lifetime appointment without actually being properly vetted by the FBI? Yes, sure. But the biggie is no doubt the overturning of Roe v. Wade. (No, really: You don’t have to be a constitutional law expert to figure this out, seeing as a majority of Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most instances.)
Justice Elena Kagan—who happens to be one of the few people on the Court who doesn’t believe half of the population should be treated like second-class citizens—recently pointed this out. At a July judicial conference in Big Sky, Montana, she told an audience: “If, over time, the Court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for democracy.” Earlier this month, while speaking on a panel at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, she declared that a court is legitimate “when it’s acting like a court,” and that it’s a problem when justices attempt to impose their personal preferences on society. And last week, she made similar remarks at Salve Regina University in Newport, Rhode Island, saying that throughout the Court’s history, “The very worst moments have been times when judges have even essentially reflected one party’s or one ideology’s set of views in their legal decisions. The thing that builds up reservoirs of public confidence is the Court acting like a court and not acting like an extension of the political process.”
Kagan’s comments don’t appear to be sitting very well with certain male justices. As Chief Justice John Roberts told a judicial conference in Colorado Springs, “Simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the Court.” But it was Samuel Alito’s response that was the most creepy, given the very clear problem he has has with women.
In a comment to The Wall Street Journal, the archconservative said: “It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning as they see fit. But saying or implying that the Court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line.” In other words, he wants Elena Kagan to shut her liberal mouth, which is not only some anti-free-speech bullshit but a convenient way for him to ignore the fact that he shares a large portion of the blame for the widely held view that the Court has no integrity.
Unfortunately, Alito’s comment to the Journal shouldn’t surprise many people who’ve kept up with his work. Not only did he author the opinion overturning Roe v. Wade in June, but he gleefully noted that his inspiration for doing so was a 17th-century English jurist who supported marital rape and had women executed for witchcraft. Later, after a 10-year-old rape victim was denied an abortion in her home state, Alito was doing comedy routines about taking away a pregnant person’s right to choose.
Of course, let’s not forget the other justice who’s done his part to erode confidence in the Supreme Court
. . . .
***********************
Alito’s brand of “justice” harkens back to glorious days of yore when all-male judges had a range of methods for dealing with uppity women who thought they were entitled to control their own bodies and lives! — Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Read the rest of The Levin Report and subscribe at the above links.
Yesterday, new Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was invested. As I’ve observed before, after the niceties and handshakes, her right wing extremist GOP colleagues will return to their chambers and continue to plot ways to bend and distort the law to dehumanize, disenfranchise, and demean Justice Brown Jackson, others like her, and all of the genuine American values she represents.
Lawrence Tribe’s tweeted critique of Alito’s disingenuous nonsense (see, full article) is “spot on:” “It’s politically agenda-driven decisions that cross the line by eroding the Court’s legitimacy.”
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
Reuters: The 9th Circuit, in an 8-3 decision, said the government has come to rely almost exclusively on detention centers operated by GEO Group and other companies. California, the largest U.S. state, does not have the authority to second-guess that decision, the court said.
NPR: In August alone, the Border Patrol recorded more than 50,000 apprehensions in the Del Rio sector, which includes Eagle Pass — tens of thousands more than in traditional migration corridors like the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso. The number of migrants arriving from Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua was nearly equal to the number from Mexico and northern Central America.
NYT: In an unusual step, Biden administration officials gave some reporters a background briefing on Monday before Customs and Border Protection’s routine monthly release of data. Officials noted that the number of removals over the past year — more than 1.3 million — was more than any previous year. See also How to understand the latest immigration numbers.
Buzzfeed: For months, Border Patrol and ICE have been releasing immigrants with documents incorrectly listing their future residences as addresses to nonprofits or churches. These immigrants and asylum-seekers, most of them from Venezuela, then show up to random buildings confused and unsure of what to do next.
NPR: A majority of Americans support a pathway to citizenship for certain groups of immigrants, including farmworkers, those deemed as essential workers and for immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. That’s according to an NPR/Ipsos poll conducted in 2021. And yet action in Washington has stalled.
Law360: The Border Patrol along the southwest U.S. border skipped assigning some noncitizens entering the country “alien registration numbers” used to create a profile of their immigration history, according to a report by a U.S. Department of Homeland Security watchdog.
LexisNexis: The BIA held that, in order to qualify for relief under Lujan-Armendariz, a state conviction must have resulted in a sentence of no more than one year of probation. … In sum, the BIA legally erred by holding that, because he received a sentence of three years of probation, Petitioner’s expungement did not qualify under Lujan-Armendariz.
AP: Prosecutors moved to drop the case against Newton District Judge Shelley Joseph after she agreed to refer herself to a state agency that investigates allegations of misconduct by members of the bench.
Law360: The University of Washington’s human rights center sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Seattle federal court for failing to provide documents that could shed light on reports that detained immigrants are enduring medical neglect, sexual assault, beatings and long periods without food.
Law360: Colorado’s Court of Appeals, which initially sided with a sheriff accused of detaining a man for four months after his daughter posted bond, has ruled that the sheriff’s refusal to release the man put him beyond the shield of immunity.
Law360: A D.C. federal judge tossed a proposed class action Friday by 95 visa holders who allege the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ lengthy processing times for work permit applications violate the Administrative Procedure Act, finding the agency has since issued decisions on each application and the claims are moot.
USCIS: he final rule removes certain regulatory text governing asylum applications, interviews, and eligibility for employment authorization based on a pending asylum application. Relevant regulatory text is restored to appear as it did before the effective dates of the vacated rules. The final rule is effective on Feb. 7, 2022.
USCIS: On Sept. 22, 2022, USCIS was notified of a settlement agreement between the U.S. Army and class members of the civil action captioned Calixto v. Department of the Army, Civ. A. No. 18-1551 (PLF) (D.D.C.). The Calixto settlement agreement affects USCIS’ military naturalization policies, and USCIS is reviewing policy changes based on the terms of this settlement agreement.
AP: The Biden administration said Wednesday that the U.S. Embassy in Cuba will begin processing full immigrant visas in early 2023, making it easier for Cubans to reunite with family members in the United States.
AILA: Advance copy: DHS notice extending the designation of Burma for TPS for 18 months, from 11/26/22 through 5/25/24, and redesignating Burma for TPS. The notice will be published in the Federal Register on 9/27/22.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
Beth Reinhard Investigative Reporter Washington Post PHOTO: WashPost WebsiteMaria Sacchetti Immigration Reporter, Washington PostMolly Hennessy-Fiske Immigration Reporter Washington Post PHOTO: WashPost Website
This WashPostarticle by Beth Reinhard, Maria Sacchetti, and Molly Hennessy-Fiske sets forth in detail how the courage and perserverance of asylum seekers, the humanity and initiative of the local community in Martha’s Vineyard, timely assistance by the Massachusetts Government, and heroic efforts by pro bono lawyers, came togetherto“redirect” the cruelty behind nativist GOP Govs’ idiotic political stunt.
. . . .
Nearly two weeks later, though, Jose is one of dozens of migrants who now question Perla’s efforts to entice them onto a flight that unexpectedly ended on the wealthy island of Martha’s Vineyard — a political operation engineered by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to gin up outrage over the United States’ border crisis.
Much remains unknown about the effort. While DeSantis has embraced his role in staging the flight, arguing that it protected Florida from “negative ramifications” of a border crossing surge, his office has been less clear about the purpose of nearly $1.6 million paid to a contractor, according to state records, and the role of state officials in developing the plan.
But Post interviews with several migrants directly recruited by Perla, as well as court documents and state records, paint a picture of a carefully orchestrated, taxpayer-funded operation with little apparent concern for the interests of the migrants caught in the middle. Florida officials began researching Texas’s migrant situation weeks before the flights, and a contractor with ties to the DeSantis administration later handled the efforts. Some migrants, meanwhile, say they were misled into signing documents after being lured into the trip with food and hotel stays.
. . . .
****************
Read the complete article at the link.
Imagine what could be accomplished if Texas and Florida officials actually worked to HELP resettle individuals in an orderly and reasonable manner that recognized their humanity and respected and facilitated their legal rights to apply for asylum and other protections in the US? What if the Biden Administration actually brought in a team of qualified experts to lead and operate our existing refugee and asylum systems fairly and effectively instead of using stale approaches and personnel who simply lack the skills, vision, and courage to get the job done?
Fortunately, the asylum seekers, NGOs, and state and local officials, and ordinary citizens in welcoming American communities have stepped up to get the job done notwithstanding the glaring failures and counterproductive efforts of the previously-mentioned groups!
The preposterous attempt by DeSantis to link “sanctuary” with asylum seekers! Loosely speaking, “sanctuary jurisdictions” are those that have declined to voluntarily cooperate with certain ICE enforcement activities, primarily directed at so-called “civil” immigration enforcement.
But, the Venezuelan asylum seekers “orbited” to Martha’s Vineyard had all been examined by DHS and released to pursue their legal requests for asylum in the US! Indeed, most probably turned themselves in to DHS Enforcement after being forced to cross illegally to present claims that the U.S. Government (with the connivence of GOP state Attorneys General and biased right wing Federal Judges) has refused to accept at legal ports of entry as they are supposed to do under our laws.
These individuals are NOT “wanted” by ICE enforcement. There is no connection whatsoever between any “sanctuary jurisdiction’s” decision not to cooperate with ICE enforcement in rounding up certain individuals for possible deportation and legal asylum seekers from Venezuela (or any other country) pursuing their claims, beyond the fact that sanctuary jurisdictions value human dignity and are more welcoming to migrants of all types and statuses when called upon to provide assistance to them.
Venezuelan asylum seekers are part of the larger forced exodus of 6-7 million Venezuelans escaping the repression of the Maduro regime. 95% of these forced migrants have found refuge in countries OTHER than the U.S. Colombia is the largest destination country with at least 1.7 million Venezuelans, many times more than the U.S.
The vast majority of Venezuelans have found refugee in countries far poorer and less able to resettle them than the U.S. The idea that “sanctuary policies” of Martha’s Vineyard or any other U.S. jurisdiction is driving Venezuelan asylum seekers is beyond absurd. Indeed, it now appears that the Venezuelan asylum seekers “orbited” to Martha’s vineyard as part of the DeSantis scheme neither knew where it was nor had any idea they were being sent there until they were well on their way!
Indeed, the decision tosend these individuals to an island with neither a DHS Office nor an Immigration Court (as opposed to, say, resettling them in Boston with advance notice), and with few “own site” pro bono lawyers, actually undermined their ability to comply with legal requirements and squandered resources that could and should have been put into getting timely and fair adjudications of their legal asylum applications. But, even in the face of GOP-led efforts to create maximum chaos, these legal asylum seekers and their supporters are committed to making our legal system work — against all odds!
Finally, congrats to Molly Hennessy-Fiske, long time LA Times immigration reporter who has now joined the team at WashPost!
Professor Erin Barbato Director, Immigrant Justice Clinic UW Law Photo source: UW Law
Good morning Judge Schmidt,
I hope this email finds you well. It is already getting chilly in Wisconsin but fall is one of my favorite seasons here. In case you are interested, this is a little piece that Newsy put together about a lovely family and Ngwa, an asylum seeker from Cameroon, who became part of their family. How a Cameroonian Immigrant Was Granted Asylum in the U.S. (VIDEO) (newsy.com) I do believe there are other families like this across the country willing to welcome people. The political use of humans seeking refuge is horrifying these days.
Thank you for all you do! I appreciate you.
Erin M. Barbato
Director Immigrant Justice Clinic
University of Wisconsin Law School
975 Bascom Mall
Madison, WI 53706
(608)262-2276
She/Her/Hers
The University of Wisconsin-Madison is built on the ancestral land of the Ho-Chunk Nation. In an 1832 treaty, the Ho-Chunk were forced to cede this territory. We respect the inherent sovereignty of the Ho-Chunk Nation, along with the eleven other First Nations of Wisconsin.
******************************
View the video at the above link! Thanks, Erin, my friend for sending this in and for all that your and your wonderful students do for humanity and for Due Process in America! Many thanks to the Swandbys and other great American families for standing by refugees in need and being role models for the best in America at a time when so many of our politicians and their followers are “modeling bad behavior and lack of fundamental values!”
It’s always good to keep in mind that many Americans do have sound values and welcome asylum seekers and other immigrants, rather than using their situation to engineer political farces at the expense of vulnerable humans who have come here seeing legal refuge and are allowed to be in the US while pursuing their claims. As I have pointed out many times, any government official truly interested in addressing migration issues would prioritize spending money for 1) representation of asylum seekers, 2) orderly relocation to places where support systems are available and asylum claims are more likely to be fairly an timely adjudicated. But, that would take a thoughtful, cooperative, governing for the common good approach rather than wasteful political stunts.
Voters in both Florida and Texas will have a chance to remove their “stuntmen” in November. Unfortunately, however, it’s not clear that will happen.
We also shouldn’t let the Biden administration “off the hook” for: 1) failing to put in place a reasonable program for resettling asylum seekers away from stressed border communities; 2) the abject failure of the Immigration Court’s asylum adjudication process which is driving much of the haphazard response to legal asylum seekers; 3) the failure to achieve meaningful reforms, training, and appropriate staffing of the USCIS Asylum Offices (even assuming that the “new asylum regulations” were the answer, the implementation has been inexcusable, inept, and ineffective, just as many experts predicted); 4) the gross failure to establish a robust, generous, realistic refugee admission system for the Western Hemisphere to process refugees for admission before they are forced to come to our borders; and 5) their overall failure of leadership on refugee and asylum issues in both the national and international arenas.
Like the 1980 and 1994 boatlift crises, the present one may be in part tacitly encouraged by the Havana regime, which, like its allies in Managua and Caracas, is closely aligned with Russia.
It is in these governments’ interest to export dissent and stir political trouble for President Biden — as the boatlifts did for his Democratic predecessors Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Notably, the exodus from Cuba accelerated after its ally Nicaragua ended its visa requirement for Cubans, making it far easier for the latter to reach the Central American isthmus — and continue on to the border.
Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela do not take their citizens back if deported from the United States, which renders the Biden administration all but powerless to deter the flow.
All of the above should inform the debate about “root causes” of migration, which, like so many of its predecessors, the Biden administration has promised to address. There is a related argument over the United States’ own culpability in the plight of people living under the three left-wing regimes. Washington has sanctioned each one for gross human rights violations, the most recent being Cuba’s nightmarish crackdown on protests that broke out in July 2021 and a similar round-up of dissidents by President Daniel Ortega’s regime in Nicaragua.
Even when the United States targets them to limit collateral damage, these measures can affect ordinary people and not just the regimes; obviously, too, millions have left non-communist countries in Latin America for a better life in the United States.
What is nevertheless undeniable is the historic debacle represented by the departure of over 6 million from Venezuela, whose population peaked at 30 million in 2015, when the main phase of the exodus began. That is a fifth of the entire country.
For Cuba, 200,000 emigrants in a year represents nearly 2 percent of its 11.3 million population. In Nicaragua, the 200,000 who have left since Ortega’s crackdown began four years ago, mostly for the United States and next-door Costa Rica, amount to 3 percent of a 6.6 million population.
U.S. sanctions, under which — for example — this country was still Cuba’s second-largest supplier of food imports in 2020, cannot possibly account for so many people “voting with their feet” against the systems they live under. The foreseeable failure of subjecting the economy to top-down control and denying people basic freedoms can.
The exodus is thus a tremendous compliment to the United States and other democratic capitalist countries. We should appreciate it. Meanwhile, it imposes duties: to treat migrants humanely and incorporate as many of them as we lawfully and realistically can; and to oppose more effectively the despotism that is the root cause of their desperation.
********************
Read the complete article at the link.
Growing up in the 50’s and 60’s in Wauwatosa, WI, then a GOP bastion, I remember that the party of Ike and Nixon never saw someone fleeing from Communism or lefty dictatorships that they didn’t swoon over. East Germans, Hungarians, the “Chang Gang” from China, Cubans, Russians, all were welcomed and viewed not only as great assets to America (which they were) but also as strong empirical evidence of the superiority of democracy over left-wing dictatorships!
In elementary and high school, I had good friends whose families had fled East Germany and Hungary. They were all hard-working folks who left much behind but “reinvented themselves” in a new environment.
Now,the forces of xenophobia, hate, fear, and the hope of exploiting the foregoing for political gain have replaced more realistic and welcoming attitudes in MAGA land. It’s up to the rest of us to show that these “negative values and bad attitudes” don’t represent the real America!
Not to mention that even the Trump administration (the Trump administration!) found that refugees and asylees are a net positive for public budgets over the long run. That is, despite typically arriving penniless, these immigrants ultimately pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits.
Contra DeSantis’s insinuations about immigrant moochers, these are people who want to work and become economically self-sufficient. That’s presumably why DeSantis’s own henchmen promised fictitious jobs to lure the asylum seekers onto flights.
. . . .
If Republican officials actually wanted to reduce the number of people coming to the border without advance permission, there are plenty of things these politicians could do. They could push for expansion of guest-worker visas, for instance. Or more funding for the refugee admissions program. Or really any other legal, orderly pathway to come to the United States.
After all, the main reason there is such a crush at the border — and why the asylum system in general is so overwhelmed — is that right now this is one of the very few legal ways to get to America.
Yes, I said legal: The families being hoodwinked and shipped around the country like chattel on chartered buses and flights are here lawfully, based on what’s been publicly reported. They turned themselves in upon crossing the border precisely so that they can apply for asylum, as is their legal right. The federal government has screened them, and granted them humanitarian parole while they pursue their asylum cases in court.
It’s not an ideal system. Or an especially fast one. It would be much better to fix the rest of our broken legal immigration system so that those other, more orderly pathways are available. Especially the pathways that offer quicker access to work permits, given America’s current massive labor shortages.
It’s true that Democrats have also put forth relatively little effort to fix these problems. In some cases Democrats seem fearful of appearing too pro-immigrant, having apparently bought into the GOP lore that deep down Americans are xenophobes. But even what little Democrats have tried to do they generally can’t do without 60 Senate votes. Which Democrats don’t have.
Democrats need Republicans to cooperate on immigration reform, and Republicans won’t. Even when those reforms are coupled with investments in border security that Republicans claim to want. The GOP would rather keep around a dragon they can perpetually promise to slay one day — and better yet, to taunt and torture for a while, in public, first.
*************************
Read Catherine’s complete article at the link. Interesting that Catherine understands so much so well, while those in the Biden Administration charged with immigration and human rights policy are so clueless, timid, and inept!
In the meantime, the Dems have done little to make the current laws relating to refugees and asylum work. The much-hyped “asylum rule changes” at DHS have had little, if any, discernible positive impact. EOIR is a national disgrace — continuing the “death spiral” that accelerated during the Trump kakistocracy. The refugee system remains in shambles. The proposed 15,000 allocation of refugee admissions for FY 2023 to Latin American and the Caribbean is an insult and a “signal” to other receiving nations in the area that we are not serious about addressing the problem. There is no rational resettlement program for asylum seekers crossing the border, thus providing an unnecessary opening for the “performative cruelty” of clowns like DeSantis and Abbott.
None of these things are “rocket science” or “budget busters.” They just require knowledgeable leadership, values, and the courage to act on them. Apparently, faced with the cruelty and desecration of values by the “MAGA GOP,” the Dems think that “all they have to do is show up, smile, and mumble platitudes” to seem like the only choice for Americans who believe in democracy. Maybe — but I wouldn’t count on it!
I think that Catherine “hit the nail on the head” with this assessment of the spineless policy officials driving refugee and asylum policies in the Biden Administration: “In some cases Democrats seem fearful of appearing too pro-immigrant, having apparently bought into the GOP lore that deep down Americans are xenophobes.” Cowardice on immigrants, immigrants’ rights, and racial justice has become an endemic problem in the Democratic Party.
