"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
SANCHEZ ET UX. v. MAYORKAS, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 20–315. Argued April 19, 2021—Decided June 7, 2021
Petitioner Jose Santos Sanchez is a citizen of El Salvador who challenges the denial of his application to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States. Sanchez entered the United States unlaw- fully in 1997. In 2001, the Government granted him Temporary Pro- tected Status (TPS). The TPS program allows foreign nationals of a country designated by the Government as having unusually bad or dangerous conditions to live and work in the United States while the conditions last. See §1254a. In 2014, Sanchez applied under §1255 of the immigration laws to obtain LPR status. Section 1255 provides a way for a “nonimmigrant”—a foreign national lawfully present in this country on a temporary basis—to obtain an “[a]djustment of status” to LPR. 8 U. S. C. §1255. The United States Citizenship and Immigra- tion Services determined Sanchez ineligible for LPR status because he entered the United States unlawfully. Sanchez successfully chal- lenged that decision before the District Court, which reasoned that Sanchez’s TPS required treating him as if he had been lawfully admit- ted to the country for purposes of his LPR application. The Third Cir- cuit reversed, finding Sanchez’s unlawful entry into the country pre- cluded his eligibility for LPR status under §1255, notwithstanding his TPS.
Held: A TPS recipient who entered the United States unlawfully is not eligible under §1255 for LPR status merely by dint of his TPS. Section 1255 provides that eligibility for LPR status generally requires an “ad- mission” into the country— defined to mean “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” §1101(a)(13)(A). Sanchez did not enter lawfully.
2
SANCHEZ v. MAYORKAS Syllabus
And his TPS does not eliminate the effect of that unlawful entry. Sec- tion 1254a(f)(4) provides that a TPS recipient who applies for perma- nent residency will be treated as having nonimmigrant status—the status traditionally and generally needed to invoke the LPR process under §1255. But that provision does not aid the TPS recipient in meeting §1255’s separate admission requirement. Lawful status and admission are distinct concepts in immigration law, and establishing the former does not establish the latter. Sanchez resists this conclu- sion, arguing that the statute’s directive that a TPS recipient “shall be considered . . . as a nonimmigrant” for purposes of §1255 means he must also be considered as admitted. But the immigration laws no- where state that admission is a prerequisite of nonimmigrant status. So there is no reason to interpret the TPS provision’s conferral of nonimmigrant status as including a conferral of admission. In fact, contrary to Sanchez’s position, there are immigration categories in which individuals have nonimmigrant status without admission. See, e.g., §§1101(a)(10), 1101(a)(15)(U), 1182(d)(14). Thus, when Congress confers nonimmigrant status for purposes of §1255, but says nothing about admission, the Court has no basis for ruling an unlawful entrant eligible to become an LPR. Pp. 4–9.
967 F. 3d 242, affirmed.
KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
**********************
So TPSers who are long time residents and meet the requirements for a green card will continue to twist in the wind. I wouldn’t hold my breath for Congress to help them out. Many of us believed there were better interpretations available that wouldhave produced a more sensible and humane result. But, we were wrong!
I guess the opportunity to rule against migrants is uniting an otherwise often divided Court!
U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared reluctant to let people who have been allowed to stay in the United States on humanitarian grounds apply to become permanent residents if they entered the country illegally.
The justices heard arguments in an appeal by a married couple from El Salvador who were granted so-called Temporary Protected Status of a lower court ruling that barred their applications for permanent residency, also known as a green card, because of their unlawful entry.
The case could affect thousands of immigrants, many of whom have lived in the United States for years. President Joe Biden’s administration opposes the immigrants in the case. The dispute puts Biden, who has sought to reverse many of his Republican predecessor Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies, at odds with immigration advocacy groups and some of his fellow Democrats. read more
A federal law called the Immigration and Nationality Act generally requires that people seeking to become permanent residents have been “inspected and admitted” into the United States. At issue in the case is whether a grant of Temporary Protected Status, which gives the recipient “lawful status,” satisfies those requirements.
. . . .
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Justice Department lawyer Michael Huston, “If you’re asking us to find the better reading of the statute, we should go by its terms: Those people have been admitted.”
. . . .
*****************
Read the full article at the link.
Garland helps Biden deliver “tough noogies, go pound sand, your lives don’t matter” message to immigrants like Jose and Sonia and their supporters who might have had the illusion that better times were on the horizon with Biden’s election! Progressives find that when push comes to shove, Biden & Garland can be just as cruel, dumb, and counterproductive as Trump & Miller!
Any hope that advocates might have had of help, sympathy, or understanding for their green-card-qualified clients with decades of residence and citizen family members goes down the tubes early in Dem Administration. Biden-Harris humane rhetoric and promises prove just another illusion for progressives in Administration’s first High Court test!
But for Justice Sotomayor, the thinness of the Justices’ understanding of both immigration law and the human issues involved was alarming, yet basically predictable. What do a bunch of highly privileged, above the fray, judges who have never personally dealt with the stupidity, arbitrariness, and trauma of our immigration system, and never represented clients in Immigration Court, care about shutting hard working American residents, people of color, like Jose and Sonia, out of our system and disenfranchising them for no particular reason. The worst, most racially discriminatory “interpretations” are “available” to those judges, so why not use them? For them, it’s a wooden academic exercise played out with human lives that don’t matter because they are “the other.” Except for Sotomayor, going for the best, most practical, humane interpretation evidently never crossed the minds of these Justices.
As Justice Sotomayor correctly said: “If you’re asking us to find the better reading of the statute, we should go by its terms: Those people have been admitted.”
It’s not rocket science. Just common sense, humanity, and a clear understanding of the effect of legal interpretations on human lives. At the Supreme Court level, most decisions represent a “choice” rather than a “mandate.” That’s where having Justices who neither care to understand nor have to live with the consequences of their decisions really hurts people of color, immigrants, asylum seekers, and others not in the “power structure!” Better judges for a better America!
Meanwhile, advocates and progressives should never underestimate the ability of Dem Administrations to screw up immigration policy.
WASHINGTON – Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez have lived in the United States legally for two decades under a program that lets immigrants from nations enduring natural disasters and armed conflict temporarily avoid returning to their native countries.
But when the New Jersey couple applied for green cards – which would let them remain permanently – they were denied because they initially entered the country illegally.
The Salvadorans sued in 2015 and the Supreme Court will hear their appeal Monday in a case that has drawn little attention in Washington even as it has raised significant questions about the Biden administration’s approach to immigration – not to mention the status of hundreds of thousands of immigrants living in a state of limbo.
. . . .
“Look, this is a no brainer,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, a Georgetown University law professor and former immigration judge. “Why waste time on it? The administration has indicated they’d like to regularize many [TPS beneficiaries] and…instead they’re defending a gimmick cooked up by Stephen Miller,” Trump’s onetime policy adviser.
. . . .
“Integrate them into our society rather than leaving them in permanent limbo – in theory, that’s what the Biden administration says it wants to do,” said Schmidt, the former immigration judge. “Only here’s their first chance to make it happen and they don’t connect the dots.”
****************
Read John’s complete article at the above link.
Yeah, I know this brain-dead position originated in the Obama Administration. I’d never accuse the Obama Administration of overall having a wise, informed, or consistent approach to immigration. But, the “precedents” at issue here were issued under Trump. SeeMatter of H-G-G-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 617 (AAO 2019); Matter of Padilla Rodriguez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 164 (BIA 2020).
Any time you see folks like Ira Mehlman @ FAIR or Christopher Hajec @ Immigration Reform Law Institute endorsing a position you can bet that there is a link to the cruel, White Nationalist policies of Stephen Miller and his cronies in the Trump Administration. If you had any doubt that the position being taken by the Garland DOJ was stupid policy, Mehlman’s and Hajec’s endorsements, and the organizations they represent, should resolve them.
Ignoring your potential friends and supporters; embracing the “racist right.” Interesting way to get started on what was promised to be a “smarter, kinder, more humane” approach to immigration policy. Can anyone really tell me what Judge Garland is doing over @ DOJ? The once highly regarded jurist who testified before Congress and was only a Mitch McConnell away from a seat on the Supremes seems to have all but disappeared into a bureaucratic fog of incompetence, bad lawyering, and missed opportunities @ the DOJ!
Look, after four years of senselessly, wastefully, and disgracefully trying to dump on long-time, contributing members of our society in TPS, like Jose & Sonia, the Trump Administration (thankfully for America) never removed any of them. The idea that the Biden Administration will do so is absurd.
So these folks are here for the duration. With Congress in deadlock, the most practical, legal, readily available way of getting tens of thousands of hard-working residents like Jose and Sonia fully integrated into our society and on their way to citizenship is simply by following the clear statutory language as other Circuit Courts have done. These are individuals who actually have met all the criteria of our legal immigration system! Most now have families with U.S. citizens. Why on earth would we want to keep those we should welcome in limbo? It’s cruel, counterproductive, and stupid!
For a much more scholarly and nuanced approach to DOJ’s wrong-headed handling of this case, check out this article in Just Security by my friend, renowned immigration expert, former senior executive in the Clinton and Obama Administrations (we actually met while working on the Refugee Act of 1980 in the Carter Administration — back when we were young), emeritus Professor David A. Martin:
I also note with pleasure that counsel of record for Jose and Sonia is Jamie W. Aparisi, who appeared before many times at the Arlington Immigration Court.
All this being said, the Supremes still mightpreserve this couple’s future and save the Garland DOJ from themselves. In past cases, faced with clear statutory language, the Supremes have required the Government to do something radically sensible:follow the law!See, e.g., Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105 (2018) (notice to appear).
So, who knows? Justice (not to be confused with the Department of “Justice”) as well as common sense and human decency could again prevail!
TIJUANA—In the weeks after Joe Biden’s inauguration, migrants across the city of Tijuana began to leave the various shelters and apartments where they’d been living in favor of an open-air encampment just north of the city’s center. It’s not a cheerful place; people have little to eat and there’s no running water. But it has a crucial location: It’s right next to the El Chaparral Port of Entry, the nearest legal crossing into the United States. Anticipating that the doors to the U.S. might soon open, they set up at the very foot of the country’s entrance.
In February, Rosemeri, an asylum seeker from El Salvador, says she pitched a tarp next to just two others. By early March, it had grown into a shantytown of more than 1,000 people, and today as many as 2,000 migrants — most of them families with children — brave the elements each day and night. Together, the makeshift community decided on a name for the tent city: La Esperanza, The Hope.
Rosemeri, like most people in the camp, is not a new arrival to Tijuana. She left her home in El Salvador in 2019, fleeing threats against her life from the gang that controls her neighborhood. Her plan was to request asylum in the U.S. But by the time she arrived at the southern border last April, a month into the Covid pandemic, it had been closed indefinitely to asylum seekers by a Trump administration public health order. Since then, she and tens of thousands of others have had no choice but to wait in northern Mexico, shuffling from shelter to shelter for months, hoping for a change in policy.
“We are Salvadorans, Hondurans, Haitians, Cubans, Mexicans, Nicaraguans,” she told me of the residents of La Esperanza. “We are here, all of us, waiting.”
The early months of Biden’s administration have been shadowed by a major increase in immigration, with border agents encountering more than 100,000 people attempting to cross unauthorized in February and more than 170,000 in March, a 15-year high. Critics on the right blame the president’s welcoming rhetoric, saying that after Donald Trump’s hard-line tack toward the border, it’s no wonder migrants are rushing in under supposedly softer leadership. But migrants themselves have a very different view: The issue isn’t Biden extending a hand; it’s that he hasn’t figured out what he wants to do — and has kept the legal pathway closed in the meantime.
Despite promising a new approach, Biden has left the effective asylum ban in place, with few exceptions. Realizing they have no prospect for legal entry into the U.S. anytime soon, many migrants like the ones here, stuck in Tijuana without a safe home to return to, are making the painful decision to try to cross the border outside the proper channels.
“We want to do this the right way,” insists Rosemeri.
The problem for people like her is that there is currently no “right way.” The Biden administration says this is all a work in progress. “We’re in the middle of a global pandemic, and it’s going to take time to rebuild robust asylum processing infrastructure at our borders,” an administration spokesperson told me in an interview last month. The White House did not respond to specific questions for this story.
Republicans in Washington have been saying Biden is too lenient, but people on the ground in Mexico suggest the root of the recent rise in unauthorized border crossings is actually the president’s prolonged maintenance of the most restrictive of his predecessor’s policies: the near-complete cutting off of asylum, a form of legal immigration.
. . . .
********************
Read Jack’s much longer full article at the link. It’s one of the few accurate, insightful pieces of reporting I’ve seen on the “overhyped yet generally mis-understood” human catastrophe at continuing to unfold at our southern border.
The problem starts, but by no means ends, with Judge Garland’s mind-boggling failure to grasp and take steps to end the deadly clown show @ EOIR! You can’t re-establish the rule of law and enforce the Constitution with inept holdover bureaucrats and unqualified Trump-Miller appellate judges in charge of the critical “retail level” of the American justice system!
Get some real, expert judges, competent judicial administrators, and fearless legal leadership, dedicated to human rights, fundamental fairness, and due process for all, into key positions @ EOIR before this system gets any further out of control, creates additional disorder throughout our legal system, and destroys more human lives!
The folks who can start fixing this are out there. Some of them (sitting Immigration Judges like Judge Dana Leigh Marks, Judge Amiena Khan, Judge Noel Brennan, Judge, Janette Allen, Judge Dorothy Harbeck, Judge Mimi Tsankov, and others) are even on the payroll outside the DC area. Many others in the private sector should already have been vetted and on the job solving problems, at least on a temporary basis!
(Let’s start, but not end, “Project Restore Due Process & Asylum Integrity,” with, say, Dean Kevin Johnson, Associate Dean Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Professor Karen Musalo, Michelle Mendez, Professor Ingrid Eagly, Marielena Hincappie, Lauren Wyatt, Professor Phil Schrag, Professor Andy Schoenholtz, Heidi Altman, Professor Debbie Anker, Judge (Ret.) Ilyce Shugall, Judge (Ret.) Rebecca Jamil, Professor Michele Pistone, Claudia Valenzuela, Claudia Cubas, Professor Jill Family, Professor Raquel Aldana, Professor Mary Holper, Liz Gibson, Greg Chen, Professor Peter Moskowitz, Laura Lynch, Dree Collopy, Professor David Baluarte, Professor Maureen Sweeney, Professor Lenni Benson, Eleanor Acer, Adina Appelbaum, Professor Elora Mukherjee, Professor Erin Barbato, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow, Professor Alberto Benitez, Professor Paulina Vera, Professor Cori Alonso Yoder, Professor Kari Hong, Professor Denise Gilman, Tess Hellgren, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Professor Laurie Ball Cooper, Associate Dean Jayesh Rashod, Ben Winograd, Associate Dean David Baluarte, and work from there! All of them are head, shoulders, knees, and toes above the current EOIR senior management and Appellate Judges on the BIA.)
Recently, I made these points in speaking to a group of retired lawyers who had no prior background in immigration law. At the end, one of them said: “The fix you described doesn’t sound that difficult. Why hasn’t it happened?” BINGO!
It’s not rocket science! But apparently “above the pay grade” for “Team Biden!”That’s a shame for American justice, any international leadership capability we might still have on this issue, and, most of all, for the vulnerable human beings that Biden, Mayorkas, and Garland have left “twisting in the wind.”
The Biden/Garland Image of Legal Asylum Seekers & Their Supporters” “Twisted by the Wind” By Ron Strathdee
I can assure the Biden folks that continuing the Trump/Miller policies and leaving their “plants and toadies” in place won’t win a single GOP vote — on anything! Truth, facts, the law, and human decency play no role in today’s GOP. You could shoot everyone dead at the border (as opposed to sending them back to Mexico and the Northern Triangle to die) and magamorons like Cruz, Hawley, and Cotton will still claim that you have an “open borders policy.”
However, your lack of positive action on asylum and refugee issues will continue to anger and betray your own supporters and mobilize them to oppose your “tone-deaf” and ineffectual policies, in court, in the media, and in politics. Doesn’t sound like a smart move to me!
Here’s the real irony. Liberal House Dems have invested in a DOA legislative effort (already “shot down” by Speaker Pelosi) to expand the Supremes. Meanwhile, over at the DOJ,Judge Garland is squandering his chance to completely rebuild and refocus the nearly 600 strong (now totally dysfunctional) Immigration Judiciary into something really special (in a good, rather than an evil, way).
That happens to be the most powerful and readily achievable way of creating a progressive, due process oriented, intellectually dominant, expert “model judiciary” that will remake the “retail level” of American justice, save human lives, advance correct practical, sensible applications of the law and the Constitution that will actually save lives, teach “best practices,” promote racial justice, and change the face of American justice for the better.
Better judges for a better America! It starts with the foundational “retail level” of our justice system — the Immigration Courts. Unlike packing the Supremes, it’s realistically achievable with courageous focused leadership (not the current failed group and indifferent leadership from Judge Garland.)
“Personnel is policy” — big time! Too bad for all of us that Judge Garland doesn’t seem to “get it.”
In that, his “grasp of the obvious” seems to be several levels below that of Trump, Miller, the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, and Mitch McConnell. Think what you might, that gang has run circles around Dem politicos for years. Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and Billy Barr “got” the importance of expanding the BIA and the Immigration Judiciary and “packing” them with many unqualified anti-asylum restrictionists who would do their bidding in undermining and destroying American justice and “Dred Scottifying” the “other,” particularly those of color, with a solid dose of mind-numbing misogyny thrown in.
To date, (with a few exceptions, like removing former Director James McHenry) Garland has failed to remove or transfer these unqualified jurists (and incompetent administrators) and start bringing in better ones, even though he has the available tools to have commenced by now. Indeed, several Miller cronies are still wandering around the Falls Church Tower in key positions, while other members of the Trump Administration’s “Asylum Denial Club” continue to crank out nativist injustice at the BIA. A number are notorious for their overtly hostile attitudes toward female asylum seekers of color and their attorneys. Yet, asylum seekers and their lawyers continue to suffer unjust and unprofessional treatment at EOIR while their abusers continue unabated in Garland’s name!
Aggressively “removing the deadwood” also sends strong messages throughout the system that the “dehumanize, deny, and deport culture” ingrained and actively encouraged at EOIR over the past four year is over!
Meanwhile, over at the broken SG’s Office, Garland is getting ready to defend one of the stupidest, most legally inane, and insanely counterproductive from a policy standpoint positions in recent memory (and that’s saying something given the performance of the Trump SG) in Sanchez v. Mayorkas . The Garland DOJ is actually committing “unforced error” by defending a clearly wrong interpretation of the TPS statute that will unnecessarily screw long-time law-abiding TPS holders, many of them spouses of U.S. citizens, who could otherwise qualify for legal immigration under current law. Shafting the VERY INDIVIDUALS the Biden Administration pledged to help and keeping them in “eternal legal limbo” while unnecessarily outraging their lawyers and potential allies. What sense does that make? If “Team Garland” can’t recognize and pick the “low hanging fruit” in the battle to restore legality and sanity to our immigration system, it’s going to be a long four years.
Professor David Martin, one of the top minds in American law, in any field, and a “vet” of past Dem Administrations, laid out the possible solutions in a crystal clear manner in Just Security. But, apparently when you’re caught up in running “Amateur Night at the Bijou” you can’t be bothered to listen to the experts who have “been there before” and learned from their experiences!
Judge Garland is recruiting folks for his SG’s Office who will continue to make the same wrong-headed arguments on immigration cases that the past two Administrations did. No Immigration or human rights expertise necessary. Check your common sense and humanity at the door. PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons
This could be our “last clear chance” to save American democracy! Right now, it’s going to waste! That’s something that should outrage and motivate all of us who believe that “due process for all persons” means exactly what it says!
Currently before the Supreme Court is a little-noticed immigration case with profound significance. Sanchez v. Mayorkas offers the Biden administration an opportunity to make major progress, without waiting for legislative action, on one of its central humanitarian goals – providing durable status to long-resident noncitizens.
A straightforward change in the government’s policy and its litigation stance could help remove a barrier blocking critical relief to several tens of thousands of noncitizens who have resided in the United States with official government permission under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Because of a longstanding but misguided agency reading of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), these noncitizens are stuck in limbo and practically unable to get the permanent resident status for which they are independently eligible based on family or employment relationships. Those most affected are TPS recipients married to U.S. citizens. The case turns on a highly technical question of statutory interpretation over which six courts of appeals have so far split evenly, but the human stakes are substantial, and a change of position by the administration would have significant impact.
The plaintiff TPS holders in Sanchez may well win the case based on the plain language of the relevant statutes, as ably argued in their brief and by supporting amici. But until now, the government has argued, to the contrary, that the language of the statute compels the agency’s current restrictive interpretation. This essay contends that the administration could provide crucial support for the TPS holders under a different legal framework that, for understandable reasons, neither side has given much emphasis.
The alternative approach is for the administration to acknowledge – in light of the statutory text, the deep and abiding circuit split, and a surprising November ruling by the Justice Department’s own Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) – that the statutory language is ambiguous. On that foundation, the government has the discretion to adopt a new (and better) interpretation that would permit eligible TPS recipients to make use of adjustment of status to obtain a green card.
In 2019, the Trump administration entrenched the restrictive interpretation through an obscure process rather clearly invoked to complicate a later policy change. The Biden administration should nonetheless undertake immediate reconsideration of the government’s position and seek to defer the pending Supreme Court briefing schedule to allow that agency process to proceed. A more refined position by the new administration would promote family unity and avoid compelling spouses of U.S. citizens to return to the very country from which they have escaped in order to seek the immigrant visa for which they already qualify.
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of David’s article, explaining his suggestions, at the link.
This issue came up before me at the Arlington Immigration Court. After holding “oral argument,” I simply followed the statutory language and granted adjustment of status to the TPS holder.
In that case, following the literal statutory language produced the most reasonable policy result. As I pointed out to DHS counsel, the mis-interpretation they were pushing would not only violate the statutory language, but also result in a long-time TPS resident with work authorization who was paying taxes and supporting an American family being deprived of the legal immigration status to which he was entitled.
The result desired by DHS would have been highly nonsensical. Why make individuals who fit the legal immigration system established by Congress, and who actually have been contributing to our nation and our economy for many years, remain in limbo? In many cases, lack of a green card limits the both the earning and career potential of such individuals, plus adding unnecessary stress and uncertainty to the situation of their U.S. citizen family members.
The DHS reserved an appeal. I don’t believe it was ever pursued, however. And, of course, as a mere Immigration Judge (even before the position was “dumbed down” by the Trump DOJ) my decision only affected that particular case.It wasn’t a precedent.
But, it does illustrate my oft-made point that having “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights as Immigration Judges, BIA Judges, Article III Judges, and policy officials would be a huge positive change, making our immigration system fairer, more efficient, and more responsive to our national needs, even without major legislative changes. Also, these adjustments could be handled at USCIS, promoting uniformity while eliminating unnecessary litigation from the bloated Immigration Court docket.
Certainly, both the Solicitor General’s Office and the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) urgently need new leadership with practical experience in immigration and human rights policies and litigation. It’s definitely out here in the private/NGO/academic sectors. The only question is whether Judge Garland and his team will go out and get the right talent in the key jobs.
Talk about taking a potential win-win-win-win and converting it to a lose-lose-lose-lose! But, the latter was a “specialty” of the Trump regime and their DOJ.
As David astutely points out, cases such as Sanchez v Mayorkas might appear “hyper-technical” to some; but, to those who truly understand our current broken immigraton system, they have huge implications. We need the expertise of the “practical scholars” of the NDPA throughout our governing structure — starting, but not ending, with a complete “housecleaning” at the disgracefully dysfunctional EOIR.
The only question is whether Judge Garland, Secretary Mayorkas, and the others in charge of the Government’s immigraton bureaucracy will (finally, at long last) bring in the right talent to solve their problems!
