🗽⚖️😎 HUGE SCOTUS WIN FOR DUE PROCESS, JUDICIAL REVIEW, ROUND TABLE! 🛡️⚔️— WILKINSON v. GARLAND (6-3)!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

Hi all: The Supreme Court just issued its opinion in Wilkinson v. Garland, in which our group filed an amicus brief. The Court held that the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship determination in cancellation B cases (involving non-LPRs) is a mixed question of fact and law, and is thus reviewable by circuit courts on appeal. The Court thus reversed the Third Circuit’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction.

The decision was 6-3. Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion; Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, and Roberts and Alito wrote dissenting opinions.

Our amicus brief argued:

In amici’s experience, whether the facts of a particular case satisfy the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” eligibility criteria for cancellation is a mixed question of law and fact.

This decision will have a major impact on cancellation B cases, as the Board’s hardship determinations will now be subject to wide circuit court review.

Here is a link to the full decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-666_bq7c.pdf

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

This case makes a huge difference! Circuit review will ratchet up the pressure on the BIA to cut the “any reason to deny” BS 💩 and start doing a quality review in every case! If not, given the number of cancellation cases in the system, there are going to be lots more Circuit remands that will jack the backlog even higher!

As put by one “Round Tabler,” this will “impact the scholarship and often times lack of analytical rigor by the Board, knowing that it is no longer completely insulated from review of its hardship determinations.” You betcha!

And don’t ever underestimate the adverse impact on due process and justice that occurs when, knowing that its decisions are “immune” from judicial review, the BIA is “pushed by the political powers that be” to cut corners, “crank the numbers,” and “keep the removal assembly line moving!” That’s why political control over the BIA’s decision-making has such an outsized adverse impact on justice for immigrants and undermines the key constitutional due process principle of “fair and impartial justice for all.”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-19-24

⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️👨🏼‍⚖️ SOME FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES SPEAK OUT AGAINST DRACONIAN TEXAS BORDER MEASURE!

“Sir Jeffrey” Chase forwarded coverage from the Dallas Morning News containing these quotes:

Former immigration judges

Two former federal immigration judges, appointed by Republican and

Democratic presidents, raised concerns over state judges being tasked with

handling immigration cases.

“It makes no more sense for a state magistrate trained in state law to engage in

the interpretation and application of federal immigration law than it does for a

federal immigration judge …trained in federal to engage in an interpretation

and application of Texas law,” said Bruce J. Einhorn, a former immigration

judge appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990.

“It’s hard to comment on something that’s just so plainly unlawful and plainly

unconstitutional,” said Rebecca Bowen Jamil, a former federal immigration

judge appointed by President Barack Obama in 2016. “The state court judge

doesn’t have the training — doesn’t have the expertise — to protect the

constitutional rights of that individual before them.”

Einhorn and Jamil were among dozens of former federal immigration

judges who signed a statement saying the proposal violates the law.

Dallas Morning News article 11.14

CLARIFICATION: While a number of members of the Round Table signed this letter in a “personal capacity,” the Round Table, as an organization did not take a position on this issue.

For a deeper dive into the history of “Juan Crow” racism in Texas — the truth that Gov. Greg Abbott and the GOP don’t want you to know, see, e.g., https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/history-racism-against-mexican-americans-clouds-texas-immigration-law-n766956.

Juan Crow in Texas — Signs like the one in this undated image were displayed at various restaurants and other pubic accommodations under a system known as “Juan Crow” laws.Russell Lee / Dolph Briscoe Center for American History

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-16-23

UPDATE FROM HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE:

Hi all: The Texas state law was passed by both houses of the Texas legislature, and is expected to be signed into law.

The letter from 30 individual members of this group was specifically mentioned yesterday on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper.

https://archive.org/details/CNNW_20231115_220000_The_Lead_With_Jake_Tapper/start/3180/end/3240

I think this link will take you to the section in which the former judges’ letter is mentioned (at the 2:52 mark).

Best, Jeff

DPF!

PWS

11-16-23

🛡⚔️THE ROUND TABLE RIDES AGAIN! — INJECTING A DOSE OF REALITY INTO 1ST CIR. LITIGATION — No, “Briefing Completed” Doesn’t Mean That A BIA Decision Is Imminent — With An 80K+ Appellate Backlog, No Leadership, No Coherent Plan, Many Appellate Judges “Programmed To View Only Removals With Urgency,” & “Priorities” That Change On Political Whim, It’s A Grave Mistake To View EOIR “Through The Lens Of A ‘Normal’ Court System!” 🤯

“Sir Jeffrey Chase forwards our Round Table’s latest effort to promote reality, reasonableness, and due process in EOIR’s dysfunctional world:

Amici curiae are 38 former immigration judges (““IJs””) and members of the 2

Board of Immigration Appeals (““BIA””).2
Amici have dedicated their careers to improving the fairness and efficiency of

the United States immigration system, and have an interest in this case based on their combined centuries of experience administering the immigration laws of the United States. Amici collectively have presided over thousands of removal proceedings and thousands of bond hearings in connection with those proceedings, and have adjudicated numerous appeals to the BIA.

In denying Anderson Alphonse’’s (““Mr. Alphonse”” or ““Petitioner””) petition for writ of habeas corpus, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Saylor, J.), relied in part on the premise that it was ““readily foreseeable that proceedings will conclude in the near future”” because Mr. Alphonse’’s appeal to the BIA was ““fully briefed.”” This premise—at best aspirational when made in January 2022—has proven erroneous: nearly six months later, Mr. Alphonse’’s BIA appeal remains undecided. This is, regrettably, unsurprising given the surging caseload in the immigration courts, which now exceeds 1.8 million

1
1Amici state that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by counsel for any

party, and no person or entity other than Amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.

2
2 See the appendix for a complete list of signatories.

1

Case: 22-1151 Document: 00117894678 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/05/2022 Entry ID: 6505717

pending cases. This crushing backlog—adding significantly to the backlog facing the BIA—-iis extremely relevant to the question of when a removal proceeding is likely to conclude. In fact, it might be the most important factor in this equation. Yet this factor is absent from the First Circuit’’s current analytical framework, opening the door to erroneous suppositions and conclusions based on a cursory review of a removal proceeding’’s posture, such as the one made by the District Court here.

Thus, Amici write to respectfully urge the Court to reassess the impact the backlog of cases facing the immigration courts may have on the ability of courts to accurately forecast when removal proceedings will conclude. Given their extensive experience with the immigration courts and BIA appeal process, Amici are uniquely positioned to provide insight into this narrow, but critical, issue.

The case is Alphonse v. Moniz, currently pending in the 1st Cir. Here’s a complete copy of our brief:

Round Table – Alphonse (1st Cir) FILED Amicus Brief – 7.5.22

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

Many thanks to our wonderful pro bono counsel Matthew Levitt and Evan Piercy at MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.

Although BIA decisions, particularly in non-detained cases, might take many months or even years to decide, the appellant is given only a relatively short period of time to file a brief — 21 days. A single 21 day extension may be requested and is usually granted, although it is common for the appellant not to be notified that the extension has been granted until after the extension period has expired.

Requests for additional or longer extensions are rarely granted. Motions to accept late-filed briefs, even those only a day or two tardy, are often denied. On the other hand, failure to file a timely brief after requesting a briefing schedule is a potential ground for summary dismissal of an appeal regardless of the merits! 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E).

These rigid procedures might give the false impression that the EOIR system is driven by a sense of urgency in dispensing justice. Additionally, BIA and AG decisions often disingenuously pontificate about the supposedly “critical importance” of finality in immigration decisions. It’s all BS!

As you might note, the only “urgency” at EOIR is the potentially severe consequences imposed on the appealing party, usually the migrant. One the “compressed briefing” is complete, there is no particular assurance that the appeal will be decided on the merits for months, years — or ever! Additionally, the BIA can sometimes make dismissal of an appeal easier by ignoring an untimely brief or even by summarily dismissing an appeal for failure to file a brief without dealing with the merits.

Moreover, the hopelessness of the 1.82 million case EOIR backlog and the “assembly line justice” encouraged by EOIR’s “political masters” at DOJ results in a sloppy, “haste makes waste” approach to “justice.” This, in turn, means wrongful removals or unnecessary “remands” from Circuit Courts.

But, not to worry — there is neither penalty nor accountability for the BIA’s poor performance. Wrongly deported individuals are “out of sight, out of mind” — assuming they are even still alive.

Moreover, court remands actually give the BIA unlimited opportunities to correct their sloppy and unprofessional work, often with the benefit of a more thoughtful analysis from the Circuit Court. Not that such beneficial treatment by the Circuit necessarily means the BIA will get it right on remand. The BIA has been known to get “chewed out” by Circuit Courts for ignoring or “blowing off” their mandates.

“Red flags” 🚩 should be popping up all over the Falls Church horizon — so big that even the often “asleep at the wheel” immigration policy folks at the Biden Administration can see them! But, don’t hold your breath! Our Round Table, however, will continue “speaking truth to power” and revealing the real, awful due process mess at EOIR.

The respondent in this case is ably represented by Associate Dean Mary Holper of Boston College Law and her Immigration Clinic. In a way, this is a classic illustration of why Garland has been unable to fix EOIR. Dean Holper is an accomplished, universally-respected litigator, teacher, writer, practical scholar, and administrator. She is exactly the type of NDPA All-Star/Expert whom Garland should have recruited on “Day 1,” brought in, and empowered to fix EOIR and reinstate and realize its due process mission. Instead, Garland’s EOIR continues to flail and fail while the talent who could fix it are lined up in court against him!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-18-22

❤️⚔️BRAVE NEW WORLD: CIVIL RIGHTS ICONS TO HOLD KEY POLICY POSITIONS @ JUSTICE UNDER GARLAND: Will Vanita Gupta & Kristen Clarke Finally “Connect The Dots” Between Immigrants’ Rights & Civil Rights, Or Will DOJ Pursue Flawed “Two-Headed” Policy Of Past Dems?

Kristin Clarke
Nominee for Assistant AG, Civil Rights
Photo: NAACP, Creative Commons License

Meet the courageous, dynamic , outspoken, new human-rights-oriented leaders looking to fulfill the Constitution and make “equal justice for all” a reality @ the DOJ and for America. Sam Levine reports for The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/03/kristen-clarke-vanita-gupta-biden-justice-department?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

On her last day at the justice department in 2017, Vanita Gupta considered taking a picture as she left the agency’s headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue. But she decided against it. Gupta, the outgoing head of the department’s civil rights division, once described as the “crown jewel” of the agency, didn’t really want to remember the moment, she told a reporter who was shadowing her for the day.

Jeff Sessions, then the incoming attorney general, was poised to unwind much of the painstaking progress Gupta, 46, and her colleagues had spent the last four years building. It was no secret that Sessions opposed the kind of court agreements the justice department used to fix unconstitutional policing policies across the country (“dangerous” and an “exercise of raw power” in Sessions’ eyes). Nor were there any illusions that Sessions would try very hard to enforce the Voting Rights Act, already on its last legs after the supreme court gutted a key provision in 2013 (Sessions described the landmark civil rights law as “intrusive”).

Many of those concerns came to pass. Trump’s justice department not only did little to enforce some of the country’s most powerful civil rights protections for minority groups, but in several cases it opposed them. It filed almost no voting rights cases and defended restrictive voting laws, tried to undermine the census, challenged affirmative action policies, sought to roll back protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, and limited the use of consent decrees to curb illegal policing practices. Gupta took a job as the head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of civil rights groups across the country, where she became one of the leading figures pushing back on the Trump administration.

Joining Gupta in that effort was Kristen Clarke, a 47-year-old former justice department lawyer who leads the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, founded in 1963 to help attorneys in private practice enforce civil rights. As her group filed voting rights and anti-discrimination lawsuits across the country over the last few years, Clarke spent hours nearly every election day briefing journalists on reports of incoming voting problems. Reports of long lines, voting machine malfunctions, translator issues – no problem was too small. The monitoring sent a message that civil rights groups would move swiftly against any whiff of voter suppression.

Now, after years of leading the fight for civil rights from outside the justice department, both women are poised to return to its top levels, where they can deploy the unmatchable resources of the federal government. Last month, Joe Biden tapped Gupta to serve as his associate attorney general, the No 3 official at the department, and Clarke to lead the civil rights division. If confirmed by the Senate, Gupta would be the first woman of color to be the associate attorney general; Clarke would be the first Black woman in her role.

“They are both independently legit civil rights champions with a long deep history,” said Justin Levitt, who worked with Gupta at the justice department and knows both women well. “They’re going to make a really spectacular, really powerful team.”

Picking two career civil rights lawyers for two of the top positions at the justice department sends an unmistakable signal that civil rights enforcement will be a top priority for the agency over the next four years. Civil rights leaders said they could not remember a prior administration in which two of the department’s highest positions were filled by civil rights attorneys, especially two such as Clarke and Gupta.

“It’s going to be really important and energizing and exciting to be able to be in conversation and discussion with people who understand the department’s role in civil rights enforcement,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), who has worked closely with both women. “But it’s also going to be exciting, and as a matter of resources, to have the department actually do civil rights enforcement.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of these inspiring American profiles 🇺🇸🌟at the link. Don’t you think we need the “Vanita & Kristen” of immigration and human rights to lead the restoration effort at EOIR and the BIA?

Here are the “keys to success:”

Immigrants’ rights are human rights;
Human rights are civil rights;
There can be neither racial justice nor equal justice in America until migrants are not only fully recognized as “persons” under our Constitution, but actually treated as such (as opposed to the active “dehumanization” and “Dred Scottification” of migrants and persons of color by the Trump regime and the GOP majority on the Roberts’ Court);
You can’t possibly “win the game” with the same players who “batted for the White Nationalists” over the past four years.

And, speaking of “Jewel in the Crown.”👑 That’s exactly how many of us in the “Round Table of Former Immigration Judges” 🛡⚔️ once viewed EOIR. The “EOIR Vision” was: “Through teamwork and innovation be the worlds’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”

So, Vanita, and I hope Kristen also, can imagine the anger and determination to fight with which our Round Table viewed the dismemberment of due process and weaponization of the Immigration Courts under Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr. From aspiring to be the “world’s best tribunals” to “Star Chambers” and a grotesque, dysfunctional national disgrace!

On the plus side: Both Gupta and Clarke are the daughters of immigrants. Both have written and advocated for immigrants’ rights as part of their civil rights leadership.

Caution. Obama Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch were “facially aggressive” on protecting voting rights and police reforms. Yet, at the same time they: helped DHS set deportation records; allowed EOIR to spiral toward dysfunction (to a large extent through failure to procure and properly manage resources and an indolent judicial hiring program that was both “closed and non-diverse in nature” and glacial in operation (2 years to fill an average judicial vacancy!)); supported “baby jails,” the “family gulag,” and toddlers representing themselves on asylum cases in Immigration Court; looked the other way as private prisons treated asylum seekers and migrants worse than convicted criminals; and “went along to get along” with the Administration’s misuse of the Immigration Courts as (a highly ineffective) deterrent to applications for asylum.

Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr might have been the “Kings of Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR that helped produce an astounding 1.3 million case plus “backlog.” But, it started in earnest under the Obama Administration.

That’s what I mean by the “two headed policy:” arguing for voting rights for minorities in one courtroom while simultaneously ignoring the human and civil rights of migrants in the next courtroom. Arguing for the right to vote in one case, while arguing (apparently with a straight face) that toddlers who can’t speak English have no right to legal representation in the next case.

Not only that, but with the Biden Administration apparently looking to rapidly fill upcoming Article III vacancies, the Obama DOJ’s mishandling of the Immigration Courts has deprived President Biden of the chance to draw from a diverse group of younger, progressive Immigration Judges whose practical scholarship, commitment to human rights and due process, courage, and proven ability to function in a “high stress” judicial setting would make them strong candidates for the now-reeling Article III Judiciary.

That’s certainly not to say that there aren’t some potential progressive candidates for the Article III Judiciary among today’s present, and particularly recently “retired,” (some essentially “forced out” at relatively young ages as a “matter of conscience”) Immigration Judges. There are! But, only a fraction of the number there would have been if the Obama Administration had taken the Immigration Courts with proper seriousness.

And, that’s leaving aside the lives that could have been saved and better jurisprudence that could have been “institutionalized” with better, merit-based, judicial selections at EOIR during the Obama Administration!

I sincerely hope that Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke can help Judge Garland get the job done at Justice. The “human rights/immigration world” will be cheering for you. Getting some of the folks from the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) into key positions at EOIR and the rest of the DOJ will be an “early signal” of whether or not “Team Garland gets it.”

Removing McHenry at EOIR was a good start! But, it’s only a small step in what has to be done to make racial justice and immigrant justice a reality at the DOJ. The “brooms and plungers” 🧹🚽 need to come out, and the sweeping and plunging has to be quick and widespread.

On the other hand, there is “no patience for another Obama Administration” out here in the real world. Every day, EOIR and DOJ are killing folks, ruining lives, and abusing the brave and dedicated attorneys of the NDPA! If the rhetoric doesn’t produce short term results and drastic improvements, you can expect the same type of aggressive litigation from the NDPA that stopped the defeated regime from completely destroying the U.S. justice system.

⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-03-21

ROUND TABLE 🛡⚔️ LEADS THE CHARGE FOR AN INDEPENDENT ARTICLE I U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT!⚖️🗽👩🏻‍⚖‍🤵🏾🇺🇸

Hon. Polly Webber
US Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Fiber Artist

Comments of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Submitted to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship

Regarding the “Real Courts, Real Justice Act.”
January 3, 2021

This statement for the record is submitted by former Immigration Judges and former Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Members of our group were appointed to the bench and served under different administrations of both parties over the past four decades. Drawing on our many years of collective experience, we are intimately familiar with the workings, history, and development of the Immigration Court from the 1980s up to present.

We hereby incorporate our Statement submitted to this Subcommittee on January 29, 2020, for its Hearing on “Courts in Crisis: The State of Judicial Independence and Due Process in U.S. Immigration Courts.” The statement sets forth the many ways in which the lack of safeguards in the Immigration Court system, specifically by positioning it within the Department of Justice, has resulted in extreme overreach by the executive branch over a system that historically has been the purview of Congress through its plenary power.

We applaud the efforts of Congresswoman Lofgren and the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship for undertaking this historic task of creating an independent Immigration Court under Article 1 of the Constitution. Bringing together stakeholders and organizations with the proper expertise and foresight has resulted in a proposal with integrity and purpose, and a realistic possibility of long-needed reform.

The recognition that this Court needed to be independent from executive influence originated within the immigration judge corps as early as 1989. It took decades for the concept to mature to its current endorsement by nearly every important legal and social organization in the field, recognizing the importance of a system built on integrity and independence. Indeed, the creation of an Article 1 Immigration Court is finally a need recognized by the public at large.

The Time is Now

The Subcommittee is in a uniquely advantageous position to introduce this legislation at the inception of this historic session of Congress. There is nearly universal agreement that the whole immigration system needs a major overhaul. Beginning with the Immigration Court reflects a recognition that protection of the most vulnerable population, those appearing before the Court, should be addressed first.

The Round Table urges the Subcommittee to wrap up its due diligence and introduce this bill at the beginning of the new session. It is hoped that by submitting the bill, the Subcommittee will indicate that these issues are on its radar and the continuing executive rampages over the Court will cease.

DHS Rights of Appeal in an Article 1 Court System

Counsel to the Subcommittee specifically asked The Round Table to address whether under an Article 1 scenario the government should have the right to challenge determinations granting relief to immigrants in federal court. This question was presumably presented because under the present configuration, such appeals are disallowed. Our Round Table unanimously believes that given the independence the Court would enjoy under Article 1, both parties should have full right of appeal.

The historical inability of DHS to petition for review from Board grants of relief in part stems from the early days when Immigration Judges were still Special Inquiry Officers and the Court was part of INS, which in turn was part of DOJ. The Attorney General originally delegated only limited decision-making authority to the Board. All complex issues had to be referred to the Attorney General. INS could not appeal decisions made by AG delegates, who all worked for the same agency. Their recourse was to ask the AG to certify the appellate agency decision to himself/herself. The inability of the government to petition for review survived the reorganizations in 1983 and 2003. The difference we are seeking to make is removing the Court from the executive agency trappings. As a stand-alone Court, its parties should enjoy all the rights and duties that fall from that independence.

As INA § 242 is written, Judicial Review is limited to reviews of final orders of removal. Thus, the scope of review would need to be changed to allow the government to challenge grants of relief.

Contact with Questions or Concerns: Polly Webber, pawebber7250@gmail.com

Sincerely,

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Hon. Steven Abrams, Immigration Judge, New York, Varick St., and Queens (N.Y.) Wackenhut Immigration Courts, 1997-2013
Hon. Silvia Arellano, Immigration Judge, Florence and Phoenix, 2010-2019
Hon. Terry A. Bain, Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2019
Hon. Sarah Burr, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge and Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2012
Hon. Teofilo Chapa, Immigration Judge, Miami, 1995-2018
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2007 Hon. George T. Chew, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2017
Hon. Joan Churchill, Immigration Judge, Arlington, VA 1980-2005
Hon. Lisa Dornell, Immigration Judge, Baltimore, 1995-2019
Hon. Alison Daw, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles and San Francisco, 2006-2018
Hon. Bruce J. Einhorn, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles, 1990-2007
Hon. Noel Ferris, Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2013
Hon. James R. Fujimoto, Immigration Judge, Chicago, 1990-2019
Hon. Gilbert Gembacz, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles, 1996-2008
Hon. John F. Gossart, Jr., Immigration Judge, Baltimore, 1982-2013
Hon. Paul Grussendorf, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia and San Francisco, 1997-2004
Hon. Miriam Hayward, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1997-2018
Hon. Charles Honeyman, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia and New York, 1995-2020
Hon. Rebecca Bowen Jamil, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 2016-2018
Hon. William P. Joyce, Immigration Judge, Boston, 1996-2002
Hon. Carol King, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995-2017
Hon. Elizabeth A. Lamb, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2018
Hon. Donn L. Livingston, Immigration Judge, Denver and New York, 1995-2018
Hon. Margaret McManus, Immigration Judge, New York, 1991-2018
Hon. Charles Pazar, Immigration Judge, Memphis, 1998-2017
Hon. Laura Ramirez, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1997-2018
Hon. John W. Richardson, Immigration Judge, Phoenix, 1990-2018
Hon. Lory D. Rosenberg, Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, 1995-2002
Hon. Susan G. Roy, Immigration Judge, Newark, NJ 2008-2010
Hon. Paul W. Schmidt, Chair and Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, and Immigration Judge, Arlington, VA 1995-2016
Hon. Patricia M.B. Sheppard, Immigration Judge, Boston, 1993-2006
Hon. Ilyce S. Shugall, Judge, San Francisco, 2017-2019
Hon. Helen Sichel, Immigration Judge, New York, 1997-2020
Hon. Denise Slavin, Immigration Judge, Miami, Krome, and Baltimore, 1995-2019
Hon. Andrea Hawkins Sloan, Immigration Judge, Portland, 2010-2017
Hon. Gustavo D. Villageliu, Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA, 1995-2003
Hon. Robert D. Vinikoor, Immigration Judge, Chicago, 1984-2017
Hon. Polly A. Webber, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995-2016

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

Centuries of judicial experience represented here! As we say, “The
Time Is Now!”

Many thanks to Judge Polly Webber and her drafting team 🖋 for making this happen in such a timely manner!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👩🏻‍⚖‍🇺🇸👍

PWS

01-03-21

LATEST JOUSTING NEWS FROM THE ROUND TABLE – Amicus Brief Filed With Supremes In Pereida v. Barr (Categorical Approach) With Lots Of Help From Our Pro Bono Heroes @ PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

Here’s the full brief:

Pereida-Supremes-Amicus-19-438 Amici Brief Former US Immigration Judges

Here’s a summary of our argument:

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This brief presents the view of former IJs and BIA members on an issue of vital importance to the functioning of our immigration system: how requiring IJs to assess inconclusive conviction records to determine whether a prior criminal conviction disqualifies a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal is contrary to longstanding application of the categorical approach, will create further delays in an already overburdened immigration system, and will deprive IJs of their discretionary power.

Mr. Pereida is correct that inconclusive state conviction records cannot satisfy the categorical approach’s requirement that the state conviction necessarily establishes federal predicate offenses. Affirming this interpretation of the categorical approach will promote the expeditious and fair adjudication of the hundreds of thousands of cases pending in immigration courts.

7

The Government incorrectly asserts that when the conviction record is inconclusive as to whether a conviction was for a disqualifying offense, a noncitizen does not carry his or her burden of proof to show statutory eligibility for relief. That argument is faulty because it would require IJs to conduct an inquiry, which the Government wrongly argues is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (“INA”) burden of proof allocation, focusing on the facts underlying the conviction. Moreover, rather than aid IJs in resolving cases, the Government’s position would impede the application of the modified categorical approach by forcing IJs to delay the proceedings. IJs will be forced to wait for the noncitizen to obtain and present criminal records that may not even exist or be obtainable and then examine those criminal records to make factual determinations the categorical approach is meant to avoid. The Government’s novel gloss on the modified categorical approach is antithetical to the analysis IJs have employed for decades and would preclude the exercise of discretion essential to the functioning of immigration courts.

Contrary to the Government’s contention, the modified categorical approach does not involve a separate factual inquiry. The requisite analysis is a legal one: whether the conviction rests upon nothing more than the minimum conduct necessary for a conviction. Deviating from the categorical approach’s sole focus on a direct and uncomplicated comparison between state and federal offenses, as the Government would require, threatens to disturb the uniformity of outcomes in similar circumstances that the categorical approach safeguards. Mr. Pereida’s interpretation of

8

the categorical approach would avoid this undesirable outcome.

For the reasons explained in the balance of this brief, Mr. Pereida’s solution is the correct one. Section I provides a real-world overview of how removal proceedings operate, focusing on the typical sequence of immigration court proceedings, how criminal records are introduced and considered, and the limited ability of noncitizens (many of whom are detained during such proceedings) to procure relevant records. Section II discusses the administrability of the categorical approach and its modified variant, highlighting the benefits of the approach, how Mr. Pereida’s position is in harmony with the way in which IJs apply the approach to reach just results, and how the Government’s interpretation would impede the workings of immigration courts. Finally, Section III explains how the Government’s position would curtail IJs’ discretionary power to analyze the facts of each case to reach a just result.

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

Many, many, many thanks to David G. Keyko, Counsel of Record, Robert L. Sills, Matthew F. Putorti, Stephanie S. Gomez, Jihyun Park and the rest of the amazing pro bono team over at Pillsbury for their outstanding and timely research and writing.

And, as always, it’s a privilege and an honor to be listed with the rest of my friends and colleagues on our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges!

Knjightess — Knightess of the Round Table

Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-07-20

ROUND TABLE OF FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES ISSUES STATEMENT CONDEMNING “MIGRANT PROTECTION PROTOCOLS” (A/KA “REMAIN IN MEXICO;” A/K/A “LET ‘EM DIE IN MEXICO”)!

January 28, 2020

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is comprised of former immigration judges who are dedicated to due process in the immigration system. As former immigration judges, we understand the inherent limitations on due process in an immigration court system that is housed in the Department of Justice, a prosecutorial agency within the Executive Branch of the government. This administration has systematically attacked due process in the immigration court system through new rules, memoranda, and policies. However, the largest assault to due process is the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program. MPP prevents access to the court, to counsel, and to resources refugees need to effectively present their cases. The limitations on due process in MPP are not incidental to the program, they are intentional.

In addition to the elimination of due process in MPP, the government is putting vulnerable refugees in grave danger. Refugees are forced to wait in dangerous border towns in Mexico without any protection or resources. As with the elimination of due process, the state created danger generated by MPP is intentional. It is part of the government’s attempt to eliminate access to asylum.

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges calls for the elimination of MPP immediately, demands that the administration take efforts to locate the thousands of individuals who were prevented from appearing at their hearings, and that all in absentia removal orders in MPP cases be rescinded sua sponte.

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

Thanks to our Round Table colleague Hon. Ilyce Shugall for taking the lead on this effort.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-28-20

Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

“Sir Jeffrey” Chase forwarded coverage from the Dallas Morning News containing these quotes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

UPDATE FROM HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE:

DPF!

Related posts:

“Sir Jeffrey Chase forwards our Round Table’s latest effort to promote reality, reasonableness, and due process in EOIR’s dysfunctional world:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👩🏻‍⚖‍🇺🇸👍

Related posts:

Here’s the full brief:

Here’s a summary of our argument:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts: