Tag: Rekha Sharma-Crawford ESQ

Rekha writes on LinkedIn:

A major step towards acknowledging that the best interest of the child must play a critical role in immigration cases. This was an idea I raised over 10 years ago with my friend and colleague, the brilliant Lory Rosenberg. Later the idea again was put forward with two additional brilliant colleagues, Paul Schmidt and Susan Roy. Sometimes it takes a very long time, but the right approach can’t be hidden forever.  So pleased to see it is finally seeing some daylight.

Here’s the Memorandum from EOIR Director David  L.  Neal:

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-12/dm-24-01.pdf

Here’s the recent UCLA Center for Immigraton Law & Policy report on EOIR’s systemic failure to provide due process for children in Immigration Court:

🤮☠️ AS CONGRESS ENGAGES IN TRUTH & REALITY FREE (NON) DEBATE ON HOW TO INFLICT MORE CRUELTY AND MAYHEM ON VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS, THE REAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS GO UNADDRESSED — “No Fair Day” Documents Continuing Abuse Of Kids In Immigration Court!

Here’s a link to the “Sharma-Crawford, Rosenberg, Roy, Schmidt article” on “Best Interests of The Child in Immigration Court:”

🇺🇸⚖️ “BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” IS A WIDELY-ACCEPTED EMPIRICALLY- SUPPORTED CONCEPT OF AMERICAN LAW — BUT NOT @  GARLAND’S DYSFUNCTIONAL EOIR! — The “Gang of 4,” Lory, Rekha, Sue, & I, With “Practical Scholarship” On How & Why To Argue For 21st Century Jurisprudence In A System Too-Often Wedded To The Past!

**********************

As noted by my Round Table colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, our Round Table has spoken out about the need for a separate Immigration Court system for children:

As you know, our Round Table signed on to a letter of support for proposed legislation to create a Children’s Immigration Court.

[Director Neal’s statement is] a positive administrative development.

Here’s my take:

1. While progress is always welcome, this statement shrouds the concept of “best interest of the child” (“BIC”) with legal gobbledygook and bureaucratic doublespeak. (P. 3 of Neal Memo under “Legal Standards”).
2. Here’s what a clear, correct statement on BIC would look like:

BIC, regardless of whether or not presented by a “Child Advocate” or incorporated in a “Best Interests Determination” (“BID”), can be directly relevant to issues of removability. For example, evidence of removability obtained by methods that clearly conflict with the BIC could be found unreliable or the result of “egregious misconduct” for the purposes of determining removability.

The BIC can also be highly relevant to issues of eligibility for relief. For example, a government or society that deprives certain children of all meaningful educational oportunities might well be engaging in persecution.

In addition, in NLPR cancellation cases, the BIC could be persuasive, even determinative, evidence that removal of a parent will result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a USC or LPR child or children.

3) Finally, since the EOIR Director is an administrator, not a quasi-judicial official, his or her policies have a distinct “you can take it or leave it” effect in Immigration Court. Therefore ameliorative statements from the Director, no matter how well-intended, are only effective if the BIA is willing and able to insist on and enforce “best practices” on Immigration Judges, preferably through precedent decisions and reassigning cases away from those IJs who show repeated contempt for due process and best practices.

Unfortunately, the current version of the BIA has, as a body, shown neither much sympathy nor concern for the substantive and due process rights of asylum seekers and other immigrants in Immigration Court. Unless and until Garland “cleans house” and appoints a BIA where all Appellate Judges are immigration/human rights experts laser focused on due process and best practices in Immigration Court — and not afraid of enforcing them uniformly in individual cases and incorporating them in binding precedents — the Director’s latest somewhat ameliorative statement is likely to be as toothless in practice as past efforts.

To a large extent, that’s a “nutshell” of why Garland’s Immigration Courts are in dire failure that threatens our entire democracy.

Unfortunately, that we are three years into this Administration and Garland is still bumbling along with a BIA that largely represents the mistakes and shortcomings of his predecessors suggests that waiting for him to “get religion” on the need for expertise, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices at EOIR will continue to be an exercise in “Waiting for Godot!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-22-23