Samuel Beckett – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️🗽 BECKY QUOTES BECKETT, AS FEDERAL JUDGE “SCHOOLS” ADMINISTRATION, GOP NATIVISTS ON WHO THE “LAWBREAKERS” REALLY ARE! — USG Bears Legal (Not To Mention Moral) Responsibility For Forcing Children Into Squalid Camps ☠️🤮 To Await Processing That (By Law) Should Be Timely & Professionally Available @ The Border (But, By Design, Isn’t)!🏴‍☠️

Becky Wolozin, Senior Attorney, National Center For Youth Law, posted on LinkedIn:

I feel so privileged to have been part of this, to do something a good thing for people in this cruel world. Immensely proud of the advocates, migrants, and colleagues who worked together to hold the government to account and protect immigrant children caught in the fray of politics and an uncaring immigration system. It is a professional dream come true to be a member of Flores Counsel with National Center for Youth Law!

“Let us do something, while we have the chance! It is not every day that we are needed. Not indeed that we personally are needed. Others would meet the case equally well, if not better. To all mankind they were addressed, those cries for help still ringing in our ears! But at this place, at this moment of time, all mankind is us, whether we like it or not. Let us make the most of it, before it is too late!” ~ Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/04/health/migrant-children-border-housing.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

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

Thanks, Becky, for your talent, dedication, and humanity, all of which stand in sharp contrast to border bureaucrats, DOJ Attorneys, and scofflaw nativists who have “weaponized” myths, dehumanization, dereliction of legal duties, and abdication of moral responsibility! This is a great example of the type of expertise and teamwork to get the job done that is all too seldom seen from the Administration, Congress, and the Judiciary in today’s toxic and too often fact- and morality-free immigration (non) debate! I’m glad that Judge Gee saw through the Garland DOJ’s pathetic attempt to evade legal responsibilities by making arguments that easily could’ be characterized as frivolous!

You can check it out yourself as quoted from the above NYT:

In response, lawyers for the Department of Justice argued that because the children had not yet been formally taken into custody by American customs officials, they were not obligated to provide such service. They did not dispute that the conditions in the encampments were poor.

Come on, man!👎🤯

I also loved the quote from “Waiting for Godot!” As Courtside readers may know, the “Theater of the Absurd,” Samuel Beckett, and “Waiting for Godot” have previously found their way into my postings about Garland’s incredibly lackadaisical approach to “justice @ Justice!” See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/12/22/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f-followng-scathing-report-on-abuse-of-kids-in-immigration-court-eoir-announces-some-reforms-rekha-sharma-crawford-reports/.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-06-24

⚖️ FOLLOWNG SCATHING REPORT ON ABUSE OF KIDS IN IMMIGRATION COURT, EOIR ANNOUNCES SOME REFORMS — Rekha Sharma-Crawford Reports!

Rekha Aharma-Crawford — Rekha Sharma-Crawford ESQUIRE
Partner and Co-Founder Sharma-Crawford Law
Kansas City, KS

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:

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”).
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

⚖️👩‍⚖️ NAIJ PREZ/EXPERT JUDGE MIMI TSANKOV TAKES YOU “INSIDE EOIR” FOR A LOOK AT THE PROS & CONS OF TELEVIDEO IN IMMIGRATION COURT — A LAW360 Special!

https://www.law360.com/articles/1509443/inside-immigration-court-the-pros-cons-of-remote-hearings

Series

Inside Immigration Court: The Pros, Cons Of Remote Hearings

By Mimi Tsankov | June 2, 2023, 6:05 PM EDT ·

Listen to article

In this Expert Analysis series, immigration judges discuss best practices for attorneys who appear before them and important developments in immigration court practice for cases involving asylum, detention, deportation and adjustment to lawful permanent resident status.

Hon. Mimi Tsankov
President,NAIJ

Mimi Tsankov

The pandemic has reset settled expectations about how we interact in the workplace, and that transformation has hurled the nation’s immigration courts on a technological voyage into the 21st century.

Despite record congressional appropriations over the past few cycles targeted, in part, on technological advances, the court has relied historically on physical files, paper communications and traditional, in-person exchanges.[1]

Although video teleconferencing has been in limited use at the immigration court since the mid-1990s, those hearings were most often in detained settings, relying typically on judges, attorneys, interpreters and legal staff who were physically present in the courthouse.[2]

Not so post-September 2021, when pandemic restraints required the U.S. Department of Justice‘s Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, home to the immigration court system, to rethink the basics of how we interact.

During the pandemic, with court staff hamstrung for months, struggling to process mountains of court-paper filings, and judges in some jurisdictions unable to hold hearings, EOIR rolled out about 100 specially equipped laptops with digital audio recording applications installed and connected to a commercially available video conferencing application called Cisco Webex.

These so-called DAR laptops enable the parties, the witnesses, the public and even the judge to appear at hearings virtually because the laptops can digitally record the video hearings in the same way as a judge in a courtroom.[3]

This powerful advance was made all the more effective with the introduction of the EOIR Courts and Appeals System, or ECAS, an online tool for filing and maintaining records of proceeding that is now operational throughout the entire immigration court system.[4]

. . . .

With improvements sure to be made as technological capabilities advance in the years ahead, the OIG has recommended that immigration courts “[c]ontinue the deployment of remote kits to immigration judges to ensure that immigration judges have the equipment necessary to adjudicate hearings efficiently from non-court settings.” This way, judges can more easily assist courts in areas overwhelmed by new cases, and mitigate health- and safety-related court cancelations.

Expansion of the remote judge corps program offers obvious efficiencies, especially if the court is able to speed up and optimize digitization of our backlogged files. Although there are some courts that are reducing reliance on the remote hearing program, as of February that appears to be an anomaly given the overwhelming support nationwide for the program.[14]

With the trial immigration judges poised to adapt and adopt these advances, it will be up to EOIR management to lead the way in determining how quickly and effectively these and other stakeholder-identified challenges can be addressed.

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

Thanks, Mimi, for all you do for due process and American justice! The above link will take you to the full article, complete with citations and disclaimer.

Sadly, my friend, waiting for “EOIR management to lead the way,” is likely to be “Waiting for Godot.”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-06-23

NEW BIA PRECEDENT ON CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES – MATTER OF ROSA, 27 I&N DEC. 228 (BIA 2018) — We’re All Becoming Bit Players In A Continuous Performance Of “The Theater Of The Absurd!”

ROSA- 3919

Matter of ROSA, 27 I&N Dec. 228 (BIA 2018)

BIA HEADNOTE:

(1) In deciding whether a State offense is punishable as a felony under the Federal Controlled Substances Act and is therefore an aggravated felony drug trafficking crime under section 101(a)(43)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) (2012), adjudicators need not look solely to the provision of the Controlled Substances Act that is most similar to the State statute of conviction.

(2) The respondent’s conviction under section 2C:35-7 of the New Jersey Statutes for possession with intent to distribute cocaine within 1,000 feet of school property is for an aggravated felony drug trafficking crime because his State offense satisfies all of the elements of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012) and would be punishable as a felony under that provision.

PANEL: BIA Appellate Immigration Judges PAULEY, WENDTLAND, O’CONNOR

OPINION BY: Judge Linda S. Wendtland

CONCURRING OPINION: Judge Blair T. O’Connor

KEY QUOTE FROM JUDGE O’CONNOR’S CONCURRING OPINION:

“So while I do not disagree with the point made by the majority and the DHS about avoiding absurd results, I unfortunately do not find it to be persuasive. This statement alone is a sad commentary on the state of affairs when it comes to making criminal law determinations in immigration proceedings and is an earnest call for a congressional fix to the mess we currently find ourselves in. See United States v. Fish, 758 F.3d 1, 17–18 (1st Cir. 2014) (collecting cases that call on Congress to “rescue the federal courts from the mire into which . . . [the] ‘categorical approach’ [has] pushed [them]” (quoting Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122, 131–32 (2009) (Alito, J., concurring))); Mathis, 136 S. Ct. at 2258 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (noting the “continued congressional inaction in the face of a system that each year proves more unworkable”).

Finally, it bears noting that the Third Circuit has already found § 860 to be the proper Federal analogue to section 2C:35-7, albeit in an unpublished decision. See Chang-Cruz, 659 F. App’x 114. In that decision, the Government conceded that this was the case, and having lost the divisibility battle there, the DHS now seeks to use § 841 to argue that section 2C:35-7 is categorically an aggravated felony drug trafficking crime. Although I do not disagree with the majority that such an approach is permissible, I do so with reservations over how much more complicated categorical determinations may become for adjudicators who must now decide what is an “appropriate Federal analogue” and consider that analogue, or any permissible combination of such analogues, in discerning whether a State offense is a felony under the Controlled Substances Act. These determinations are difficult enough for an immigration system that is already overburdened. In the words of Justice Alito, “I wish them good luck.” Mathis, 136 S. Ct. at 2268 (Alito, J., dissenting).”

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

Bottom line:

The respondent loses (of course);
The law is too complicated; and
Judge O’Connor thinks it should be unnecessary to go through all this rigmarole because this is a “bad guy” whom Congress clearly intended to kick out without recourse.

If anyone can explain the legal gibberish in this case further to me in plain English in 25 words or fewer, please do!

I get the point that the law has become too complex. But, this discussion seems to bypass the real problem in cases like this that has been “lost in space.”

How would an unrepresented, detained individual who doesn’t speak English properly defend him or herself in a case like this. The clear answer: they couldn’t, since even the “expert judges” in the Ivory (or Glass) Towers with their teams of cracker-jack law clerks are struggling with this stuff. Therefore, in the absence of counsel, appointed if necessary, these hearings before the Immigration Judges are nothing but judicial farces, theaters of the absurd, that mock due process and fairness and trample our Constitution. Samuel Beckett, Luigi Pirandello, Friedrich Dürrenmatt, and friends would be proud of what’s been accomplished in our 21st Century immigration system!

That’s the problem to which both Congress and the Article III Appellate Courts need to wake up before it’s too late. In the meantime, please explain to me just how Sessions’s “pedal faster, schedule more, cut corners” approach to the Immigration Courts is helping to solve this problem?

PWS

03-14-18

Becky Wolozin, Senior Attorney, National Center For Youth Law, posted on LinkedIn:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Rekha writes on LinkedIn:

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

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:

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

Here’s my take:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts: